Post reply

Warning - while you were reading 22 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Please read the rules before you post!


Topic Summary

Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: Today at 09:36:44 AM »

On the Movement Orders tab of the Naval Organization window, the "Delete Template" button and the "Delete" (fleet) button are right next to each other.
This positioning, despite the subsequent confirmation dialog, leads to me occasionally deleting a fleet when I intend to delete a template.

I think mistakes would be less likely if the second button were labeled "Delete Fleet."

That button is used to delete whatever you have selected - Fleet, Ship, Squadron, Naval Admin Command, Sub-fleet or Shipping Line. I probably should modify the button label though when you click on different things.
Posted by: skoormit
« on: Today at 05:06:45 AM »

On the Movement Orders tab of the Naval Organization window, the "Delete Template" button and the "Delete" (fleet) button are right next to each other.
This positioning, despite the subsequent confirmation dialog, leads to me occasionally deleting a fleet when I intend to delete a template.

I think mistakes would be less likely if the second button were labeled "Delete Fleet."
Posted by: welchbloke
« on: May 24, 2024, 02:40:19 PM »

Also, some projects have names that are so long that you can't see the appended part in the list.
Example: "Max Tracking Time for Bonus vs Missiles: 30 Second..."

The same is true for the industry tab, it would be useful to be able to see the full text without it being appended - maybe a tooltip on hover over the text? I really struggle to work out which ship components I'm building sometimes!
Posted by: Kiero
« on: May 24, 2024, 11:50:52 AM »

1) Some kind of Waypoint patterns would be great.
Exp. Evenly place X WPs at the radius of 7,7 m km starting at bearing 00.

or

2) Some "LOGO turtle drawing" for the order template. Where I could specify "Bearing" and a "Distance".
Exp.
Go at Bearing 00 for a Distance 7,7 m Km, then Launch Ready Ordnance.
Go at Bearing 1800 for a Distance 7,7 m Km.
Go at Bearing 1200 for a Distance 7,7 m Km, then Launch Ready Ordnance.
and so on...

So we could produce patterns like on bellow screen:

Posted by: skoormit
« on: May 24, 2024, 10:47:31 AM »

On the Research tab, clicking the Assign New button will cause the project name to be appended with "(N)".

I suggest prepending it to the project name instead, to make it easier to find such projects when the list is long

Also, some projects have names that are so long that you can't see the appended part in the list.
Example: "Max Tracking Time for Bonus vs Missiles: 30 Second..."
Posted by: gpt3
« on: May 22, 2024, 10:34:28 AM »

Engine technology:
I know this topic has already been raised, but every time I play I wait for the engines to reach at least the level of the Nuclear Pulse Engine.
Maybe it would be worth raising the cost of researching the initial stages of the engines, that would extend the time they can be used, both by players and AI?

Counterpoint: I use NRE tech quite a bit in my conventional-start games. I also play with limited research admin + 50% research speed, so even developing NTE tech takes some time during which I can build quite a lot of NRE-level freighters and colony ships. So personally, I prefer things as they are since I would not want to drag out the conventional starts even longer than they already are.

I agree. As a workaround though: since research costs increase exponentially with tech level, the global and racial "research speed" settings are pretty good controls for which tech level you wish to play your game at. Unless You will always eventually settle into a multi-decade state where there's a "modern" tech, 1-2 levels of "legacy" tech, and an being-researched "prototype" tech.

For example, I personally have a soft spot for fission and slow games, so I've been pondering knocking research down to 5-10% so that majority of my game will be spent with nuclear pulse and gas-core engines, with fusion perpetually 30 years away. Humanity will most likely need to reverse-engineer alien tech in order to master these systems.

Alternatively, if you make research cheap, then you can battle spoilers using endgame tech like in Stormtrooper's COVID-19 campaign.
Posted by: Garfunkel
« on: May 17, 2024, 07:02:57 AM »

For RP purposes, it would be great if a module for a ship could be designed to assign a Scientist and/or Administrator.
How about the ability of any misc component to "house" any type of commander?
Posted by: Kiero
« on: May 16, 2024, 08:46:45 AM »

For RP purposes, it would be great if a module for a ship could be designed to assign a Scientist and/or Administrator.
Posted by: nuclearslurpee
« on: May 16, 2024, 05:21:18 AM »

Engine technology:
I know this topic has already been raised, but every time I play I wait for the engines to reach at least the level of the Nuclear Pulse Engine.
Maybe it would be worth raising the cost of researching the initial stages of the engines, that would extend the time they can be used, both by players and AI?

Counterpoint: I use NRE tech quite a bit in my conventional-start games. I also play with limited research admin + 50% research speed, so even developing NTE tech takes some time during which I can build quite a lot of NRE-level freighters and colony ships. So personally, I prefer things as they are since I would not want to drag out the conventional starts even longer than they already are.
Posted by: Kiero
« on: May 16, 2024, 04:59:21 AM »

Engine technology:
I know this topic has already been raised, but every time I play I wait for the engines to reach at least the level of the Nuclear Pulse Engine.
Maybe it would be worth raising the cost of researching the initial stages of the engines, that would extend the time they can be used, both by players and AI?
Posted by: AlStar
« on: May 15, 2024, 01:05:42 PM »

Exactly like that!  ;D

Although (IMO) it'd be better if Steve integrated that functionality into the game itself, so we don't have to use a 3rd-party solution.

Maybe build it into the events tab - clicking on an event will let you change the text/background color (as now), and if it does/doesn't cause interrupts.
Posted by: skoormit
« on: May 15, 2024, 12:37:49 PM »

...a screen that lists all events, and has a checkmark for "does this stop time? y/n" would be ideal (although probably a lot more work than I'd expect.)

Even better if the screen lets us import/export our preferred interrupts.

Like this?
Posted by: AlStar
« on: May 15, 2024, 08:49:35 AM »

It would be nice to be able to toggle a checkbox on the fleet orders screen to control if finishing shore leave stops auto-turns.
To build on this, a screen that lists all events, and has a checkmark for "does this stop time? y/n" would be ideal (although probably a lot more work than I'd expect.)

Even better if the screen lets us import/export our preferred interrupts.
Posted by: vorpal+5
« on: May 15, 2024, 08:00:50 AM »

And on the contrary (sorta...) entering overhaul will halt the time interval. Is it that important?
Posted by: skoormit
« on: May 15, 2024, 06:42:34 AM »

The Shore Leave Complete event does not stop auto-turns.
Usually, that is my preference.
Sometimes, though, I am waiting for a ship to complete shore leave before I give further orders.

It would be nice to be able to toggle a checkbox on the fleet orders screen to control if finishing shore leave stops auto-turns.