C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions

[Steve Walmsley]

If this goes on you're going to end up spending more time correcting previous statements than actually implementing new features XD.

I do trawl through the change list occasionally to check if anything needs updating

[The Forbidden]

A centralized wiki would probably be a better long term idea though (wasn't somebody working on that ?) But for now the change list is still a gold mine of information. By the way, ever had the time to test if the NPR actually properly made and managed it's fleets in your test campaign ? That's one thing that I've been very curious about, especially how they handle a prolonged war with that system.

[King-Salomon]

A centralized wiki would probably be a better long term idea though (wasn't somebody working on that ?) But for now the change list is still a gold mine of information. By the way, ever had the time to test if the NPR actually properly made and managed it's fleets in your test campaign ? That's one thing that I've been very curious about, especially how they handle a prolonged war with that system.

http://aurorawiki.pentarch.org/index.php?title=Aurora_C

[The Forbidden]

A centralized wiki would probably be a better long term idea though (wasn't somebody working on that ?) But for now the change list is still a gold mine of information. By the way, ever had the time to test if the NPR actually properly made and managed it's fleets in your test campaign ? That's one thing that I've been very curious about, especially how they handle a prolonged war with that system.

http://aurorawiki.pentarch.org/index.php?title=Aurora_C

Thanks ! By the way, the link is broken, the # is missing.

[Steve Walmsley]

By the way, ever had the time to test if the NPR actually properly made and managed it's fleets in your test campaign ? That's one thing that I've been very curious about, especially how they handle a prolonged war with that system.

The NPR did manage its fleets well, including creating new operational groups with the correct mix of ships and building ships to fill gaps. It's combat I need to test now.

[The Forbidden]

The NPR did manage its fleets well, including creating new operational groups with the correct mix of ships and building ships to fill gaps. It's combat I need to test now.

Thanks, and okay, good luck then !

[SpikeTheHobbitMage]

Hey, Steve, I was looking at the C# Civilian Economy wiki and noticed this line:

"The number of civilian freighters and colony ships will be kept relatively even."

At least in my own VB games, this strategy tends to result in too many colony ships and not enough freighters.  A more balanced approach would consider actual workload when deciding which ship types to build.  The simplest approach would be for each company to limit production based on the number of idle ships of each type, weighted to prefer types with fewer idlers.  A limit around 5 would probably give the best results.

[Erik L]

I'd like to see a General Quarters type setting for fleets/ships. This would reduce the amount of time to execute orders as the crew is ready for action. Ships could not maintain GQ for extended periods of time (more than 8 hours for example).

[SpikeTheHobbitMage]

I'd like to see a General Quarters type setting for fleets/ships. This would reduce the amount of time to execute orders as the crew is ready for action. Ships could not maintain GQ for extended periods of time (more than 8 hours for example).

This could include a morale penalty building up over time, with a cooldown period (and effectiveness penalty) while the crew rests.  Crew training level could increase the benefits while reducing the penalties.  Maybe consume crew deployment time faster while active?

[Father Tim]

. . .  The simplest approach would be for each company to limit production based on the number of idle ships of each type, weighted to prefer types with fewer idlers.

A better approach would be for each compan to build only one type of civilian craft (freighter, colony, fuel harvester, etc.).  That way, companies with types with a higher demand will earn more money and build more ships.  Self-regulating.

[SpikeTheHobbitMage]

. . .  The simplest approach would be for each company to limit production based on the number of idle ships of each type, weighted to prefer types with fewer idlers.

A better approach would be for each compan to build only one type of civilian craft (freighter, colony, fuel harvester, etc.).  That way, companies with types with a higher demand will earn more money and build more ships.  Self-regulating.

There are two problems with that method:
1) You need both freighters and colonizers in the early game (read: first year) when you only have one company.
2) Even if you limit to a single type per company, you will still overbuild since your idlers are still a percentage of your working ships.

What I'm proposing is closer to how real shipping companies operate, in that if they have idle assets, they don't build more.  It also directly addresses the problem of idle civilian ships cluttering the game.  And frankly, 5/type/company is probably too high.

[Hazard]

I'll also note that civilian fuel harvester mechanics are notably different from civilian transportation mechanics. Fuel harvesters produce wealth for the company operating them dependent on how much fuel they produce, regardless of if it's sold to empires or to the open market (overflow from the storage tanks). The various transport ships need to move between ports with cargo to make money.

[alex_brunius]

A better approach would be for each compan to build only one type of civilian craft (freighter, colony, fuel harvester, etc.).  That way, companies with types with a higher demand will earn more money and build more ships.  Self-regulating.

I like that approach. It makes sense, feels a bit more plausible than all companies building all types of ships and is probably a good idea for game balance too!

[chrislocke2000]

I'd like to see a General Quarters type setting for fleets/ships. This would reduce the amount of time to execute orders as the crew is ready for action. Ships could not maintain GQ for extended periods of time (more than 8 hours for example).

I like this idea as well and have suggested it previously. I thought this would be a good way to manage ships sitting on a picket for two years but still being able to react immediately and would also be a way to manage time to launch fighters. I think Steve's view is that this will create too much micro management though and I can see the point but would still like it as an option much as we have the ability to switch on and off crew training etc.

[misanthropope]

usage rate is a reasonable way to allocate between freight and colony, but liners are going to present some problems.  they have zero idle time, ever, and while you're confined to one system (with very short transit times) their ROE is sky high.  weight by usage or profit and you're going to wind up with a lot of liners and a lot of wealth production.  which is actually *correct* given the economics of aurora, but amounts to an exploit since the economics are so underdeveloped.

i imagine you'd see similar behavior vis a vis colony ships for players who use the infinite wealth earth-moon round trip exploit.

would it be so bad just to let the player decide which types of ships subsidy funds are spent on?   make the "profits squandered" portion a bit higher, and call it a day?  youd have to have the designs published before the first one is built, but among other things players can keep the population of small civ units down, which is good in a lot of ways.

the other approach is just an elaboration of StHM's one:  you take the time to make sure you have shipping profits (in particular ROE) really right, and keep track of annual ROE by ship class.  have newer (and larger!) designs assigned tasks preferentially, and where ROE is high you build new ships and where ROE is low you retire.  this is a lot more work and i am not requesting you spend the time... but dare i say it is in the spirit of how aurora is developed and played?   OCD is an ugly disease