Author Topic: The Great Crusade - Discussion  (Read 9228 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Father Tim (OP)

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 2162
  • Thanked: 531 times
The Great Crusade - Discussion
« on: January 05, 2019, 09:40:02 PM »
One HUNDRED MILLION Spaceport workers?  Are they passing everything up the space elevator hand-to-hand in a human chain?
 
The following users thanked this post: El Pip, dag0net

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2788
  • Thanked: 1051 times
Re: The Great Crusade - Discussion
« Reply #1 on: January 05, 2019, 10:59:33 PM »
Now I'm imagining that chain... and it's glorious :D
 

Offline King-Salomon

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 153
  • Thanked: 38 times
Re: The Great Crusade - Discussion
« Reply #2 on: January 06, 2019, 02:31:52 AM »
One HUNDRED MILLION Spaceport workers?  Are they passing everything up the space elevator hand-to-hand in a human chain?

guess it's because of the 100 (!) Refueling Stations, 100 (!) Ordnance Transfer Stations, 100 (!) Cargo Shuttle Stations mostly 100 (!) Spaceports...

öhm.. Steve, did you SM these for the starting parameters of are these "standart facilities" for 1000m population in TN start?  :o
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11661
  • Thanked: 20383 times
Re: The Great Crusade - Discussion
« Reply #3 on: January 06, 2019, 06:34:51 AM »
LOL I hadn't even noticed :)

Thanks for spotting. The NPRs are fine BTW. It is only affecting the player race, which is weird. I'll let you know what I find.

EDIT: Found it. It was part of the custom player race creation that allows you to edit the number of starting installations. The fighter factory number was being copied into some code for logistics installations that should have been removed. That code wasn't accessed for the NPRs, so they weren't affected. I've updated the screenshots.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2019, 06:52:54 AM by Steve Walmsley »
 
The following users thanked this post: Karlito, Garfunkel, dag0net

Offline The Forbidden

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • T
  • Posts: 67
  • Thanked: 4 times
Re: The Great Crusade - Discussion
« Reply #4 on: January 07, 2019, 06:27:47 AM »
This campaing reminds me of the old one you did, with the minister who was pushing for kinetic weapons everywhere because he had a large involvement with the kinetic weapon manufacturers XD.  Will we see something like this ? I'd love to see how energy weapon combatants fare in C# Aurora.
 

Offline chrislocke2000

  • Captain
  • **********
  • c
  • Posts: 544
  • Thanked: 39 times
Re: The Great Crusade - Discussion
« Reply #5 on: January 07, 2019, 06:44:17 AM »
Just noticed that the starting manufacturing efficiency is at 70 odd percent. Not sure if that is a screen shot from before the 100m dock workers was fixed and hence there was a worker shortage or something else?
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11661
  • Thanked: 20383 times
Re: The Great Crusade - Discussion
« Reply #6 on: January 07, 2019, 06:45:58 AM »
Just noticed that the starting manufacturing efficiency is at 70 odd percent. Not sure if that is a screen shot from before the 100m dock workers was fixed and hence there was a worker shortage or something else?

Should have been corrected when I fixed the 100 spaceports problem. I can't see the images here so I will check when I get home tonight.
 

Offline TMaekler

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1112
  • Thanked: 298 times
Re: The Great Crusade - Discussion
« Reply #7 on: January 07, 2019, 08:50:30 AM »
The starting option "Jump Gates on all Jump Points" should read "Jump Stabilization for all Jump Points" now, or shouldn't it?
 

Offline King-Salomon

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 153
  • Thanked: 38 times
Re: The Great Crusade - Discussion
« Reply #8 on: January 07, 2019, 09:03:33 AM »
The starting option "Jump Gates on all Jump Points" should read "Jump Stabilization for all Jump Points" now, or shouldn't it?

already fixed:

Steve one small point to note. On the game set up screen the warp point check point still refers to "jump gates on all warp points". I guess that should now just be "stable warp points". I suspect that eradicating the scourge of jump gates from the game will be a long and arduous process!

Just one side thought on this, with the progress made on the AI and the ability for updated orders to be provided to ships do you think you may get the position where warp point destabilisation tech may become a possibility?

Fixed the text. Theoretically, destabilisation could be added as an option but I want to have a lot more experience with the AI before I open that particular door :)
 

Offline Agoelia

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • A
  • Posts: 31
  • Thanked: 5 times
Re: The Great Crusade - Discussion
« Reply #9 on: January 07, 2019, 11:27:54 AM »
What are the STB Locus Stellatum 1,2,3 and 4 seen in the Naval Organization screenshot?
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11661
  • Thanked: 20383 times
Re: The Great Crusade - Discussion
« Reply #10 on: January 07, 2019, 12:12:09 PM »
What are the STB Locus Stellatum 1,2,3 and 4 seen in the Naval Organization screenshot?

Jump Point Stabilisation Ships (the new version of Jump gate Construction Ships).
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11661
  • Thanked: 20383 times
Re: The Great Crusade - Discussion
« Reply #11 on: January 07, 2019, 03:34:59 PM »
I've just run into a campaign-breaking bug - grrr!

In a real systems game, the program is supposed to keep track of which real systems are generated, so that each system is only generated once and to check if two races find the same real system. Unfortunately I wasn't saving that value. I realised when I created my second Bernard's Star :)

Although the DB had a zero value, some detective work using star types, binary distances and 3D positions allowed me to work out most of the real systems for each generated system. Unfortunately they included duplicate Alpha Centauri and one other duplicate, plus Bernard's Star. It would be messy to fix with the NPRs already active in those systems, so I am going to restart. I was really looking forward to the ruins on Mercury too!

Anyway, I will use the same general setup values and keep the background, although I might not end up with the same ship designs. I will revamp the screenshots as needed once I redo the setup. Here is a couple of paragraphs from the relatively uneventful five pages of AAR I had written, which provide an indication of how different colony opportunities will seems after some of the C' changes.

Valiant, under the command of Captain Zachariel Trajan, emerges in 61 Cygni, a binary system of two K-class stars orbiting thirteen billion kilometres apart. The primary has three terrestrial planets, one of which has a single moon. The innermost is a Venusian world with a thick, toxic atmosphere. The second planet, which like the first is tide-locked to the star, has acceptable gravity, a nitrogen-oxygen atmosphere of 0.375 atm and a surface temperature of 78C. The world is almost completely covered in water, with small archipelagos taking up only 0.2% of the surface. The oxygen content is minimal, at only 0.004 atm, but this could be terraformed into a habitable world once the technology is available. Even though the temperature is high, the fact the planet is tide-locked means that settlers can exist in the zone between the light and dark sides of the planet, making the colony cost for temperature just 0.33. However, the combination of minimal land area and the restriction to the twilight zone, means the maximum population of the planet is currently only twelve million. Terraforming could improve this by extracting water vapour from the atmosphere, allowing further evaporation of the oceans. The third planet has a similar atmosphere of 0.33 atm, with 0.007 atm of oxygen. The temperature is -83C, which combined with hydrographic extent above 80%, makes ice fields the dominant terrain.

The B component has eight planets, two of which are gas giants, and thirty-eight moons. The two innermost planets are terrestrial and tide-locked so, despite their respective surface temperatures of 196C and -43C, are both colony cost 2.00. Even so, given they have minimal atmosphere and no water, they are not attractive prospects for terraforming. Valiant reports her findings and is instructed to survey the planets of the primary. The other two geosurvey vessels, Venture and Voyager, are currently in the Kuiper Belt and outer Mars-Jupiter belt respectively. Very few inner system bodies have yet to be surveyed. With that in mind, Rear Admiral Martellus orders Voyager to complete her current planned survey tasks and then investigate jump point one.
 
The following users thanked this post: King-Salomon, dag0net

Offline Bremen

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 744
  • Thanked: 151 times
Re: The Great Crusade - Discussion
« Reply #12 on: January 07, 2019, 04:05:43 PM »
It's not a game breaking bug, it's a war between mirror universes!

(I kid. Sorry you had to restart, but better to catch it now than later I guess!)
 

Offline King-Salomon

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 153
  • Thanked: 38 times
Re: The Great Crusade - Discussion
« Reply #13 on: January 07, 2019, 04:09:28 PM »
I've just run into a campaign-breaking bug - grrr!

In a real systems game, the program is supposed to keep track of which real systems are generated, so that each system is only generated once and to check if two races find the same real system. Unfortunately I wasn't saving that value. I realised when I created my second Bernard's Star :)

Although the DB had a zero value, some detective work using star types, binary distances and 3D positions allowed me to work out most of the real systems for each generated system. Unfortunately they included duplicate Alpha Centauri and one other duplicate, plus Bernard's Star. It would be messy to fix with the NPRs already active in those systems, so I am going to restart. I was really looking forward to the ruins on Mercury too!

Would it help to add a "save game feature" for testing so that you don't have to start again every time you run into such a gamebreaker? Or would it be too complicated to make a change savegame compatible? Guess it would be difficiult to see if a bug is a "new" bug or because of the chances between versions with the same savegame... hmm... merde -.-
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11661
  • Thanked: 20383 times
Re: The Great Crusade - Discussion
« Reply #14 on: January 07, 2019, 04:33:35 PM »
Would it help to add a "save game feature" for testing so that you don't have to start again every time you run into such a gamebreaker? Or would it be too complicated to make a change savegame compatible? Guess it would be difficiult to see if a bug is a "new" bug or because of the chances between versions with the same savegame... hmm... merde -.-

There is a save game feature. In fact, that is the only way to save the game as it no longer accesses the database during play. I've just saved a lot over the last couple of days and I don't want to go back to an pre-campaign backup and then fix the db-related bugs I already fixed once :)

Starting again is easier and I can apply what I learned already.

 
The following users thanked this post: V1D0, Jovus