Post reply

Warning - while you were reading 26 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: nuclearslurpee
« on: Today at 10:41:31 AM »

QOL Suggestion:

Naval Organization window, Fleet -> Movement Orders tab
Double clicking any order in the list of the fleet's current orders should remove all orders after that one (perhaps with a confirmation prompt).


Sometimes I need to trim a long list of orders back to a specific point.
Repeatedly clicking the Remove Last button is the only way to do it currently.
Sometimes that's a LOT of clicks, and sometimes a user overclicks and then has to re-create the unintentionally removed orders.

Seconded as I actually run into this issue often when I repeat a set of orders many times and find I miscounted or the conditions changed.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: Today at 09:59:57 AM »

Request for a new fleet order: Begin Overhaul and Join Fleet

I often give ships orders to return to a planet and begin overhaul, and as soon as they arrive and I receive the interrupt event, I manually drag them to a holding fleet.
It would be great if I could do this with a single order and avoid all the extra interrupts and manual fiddling.

Added for v2.6.
Posted by: skoormit
« on: Today at 08:57:22 AM »

QOL Suggestion:

Naval Organization window, Fleet -> Movement Orders tab
Double clicking any order in the list of the fleet's current orders should remove all orders after that one (perhaps with a confirmation prompt).


Sometimes I need to trim a long list of orders back to a specific point.
Repeatedly clicking the Remove Last button is the only way to do it currently.
Sometimes that's a LOT of clicks, and sometimes a user overclicks and then has to re-create the unintentionally removed orders.
Posted by: Kaiser
« on: Today at 08:35:58 AM »

I do not remember if it has been suggested, could it be possible to personalize the naval organization tab with different colours?

At some point, when there are many ships, fleets, sufleets and command, it became a little messy and my eyes fly around before I can individuate the ship/fleet I am looking for.

It would be great having the possibility to assign a given color to a specific fleet or ship.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: Yesterday 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: Yesterday 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.