Author Topic: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion  (Read 135743 times)

0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline bean

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • b
  • Posts: 916
  • Thanked: 56 times
Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #225 on: March 07, 2016, 09:55:18 AM »
Numbers from the hat! There is no logical reason for that on several minutes up to half day commercial trips, even within the game rules that would be excessive.  The real reason is the game focus on military aspects, hence there is no way to enforce "cargo expiration", and those Cryo components average use is much longer than that.
The numbers are based on the minimum size of commercial engine components and the other 'minimum gauge' components like bridges and engineering spaces.  Unless this proposal goes to the point of re-working all of commercial shipping, you're going to see passenger numbers that dwarf old ocean liners and troopships, much less airliners.  That means you will have trouble getting people on and off efficiently.  My point is that this doesn't fit well into existing game rules, not that it's totally logically absurd.  The best way to solve this problem (although we really don't need to make colonizing the moon easier) is to give civilian colony ships the ability to carry more people on very short hauls. 
To expand slightly on this, I used a spreadsheet to look at the optimum size of ships with a single nuke-pulse Size 25 commercial engine.  It turns out that it's one cryo module or one cargo bay.  The optimum speed gets slower as the cargo module gets cheaper, so it's likely a cheaper passenger module would end up with two modules on a single engine, and at least twice the passenger capacity of the cryo colony ship.

Edit:
The airport analogy bears some thinking on.  A modern airport is a very sophisticated system for moving people in and out of aircraft.  The biggest modern airports (or seaports) are the equivalent of a high-level spaceport in Aurora, which is not the sort of thing you're likely to see on a new colony.  After all, a primitive moonbase is unlikely to play host to several dozen boarding tubes in exactly the right configuration for your fancy new high-density colonist transporter.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2016, 10:24:17 AM by byron »
This is Excel-in-Space, not Wing Commander - Rastaman
 

Offline Mor

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 305
  • Thanked: 11 times
Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #226 on: March 08, 2016, 06:39:40 AM »
While using ships to ship cargo in bulk is most efficient way, last I checked its not the popular method of intercontinental transport. Certainly not for flights that would take less time than boarding your proposed ship. Anyway, my point was that his suggestion make sense, but just doesn't fit well within the scope of Aurora and its mechanics.
 

Offline bean

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • b
  • Posts: 916
  • Thanked: 56 times
Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #227 on: March 08, 2016, 09:16:20 AM »
While using ships to ship cargo in bulk is most efficient way, last I checked its not the popular method of intercontinental transport. Certainly not for flights that would take less time than boarding your proposed ship. Anyway, my point was that his suggestion make sense, but just doesn't fit well within the scope of Aurora and its mechanics.
In broad terms, I agree.  I was trying to point out that within the framework we have, this doesn't work well, even though the idea has some merit in an ideal world.
This is Excel-in-Space, not Wing Commander - Rastaman
 

Offline MarcAFK

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 2005
  • Thanked: 134 times
  • ...it's so simple an idiot could have devised it..
Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #228 on: March 09, 2016, 01:22:19 AM »
Perhaps a compromise might be making luxury passenger transport modules scale in size based on a ships deployment time, since default is 3 months, maybe reducing time lowers the module size up to a set minimum. It would need balancing. There's the downside that it might therefore make sense that longer flights would need larger modules.
" Why is this godforsaken hellhole worth dying for? "
". . .  We know nothing about them, their language, their history or what they look like.  But we can assume this.  They stand for everything we don't stand for.  Also they told me you guys look like dorks. "
"Stop exploding, you cowards.  "
 

Offline iceball3

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 454
  • Thanked: 47 times
Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #229 on: March 09, 2016, 10:03:20 AM »
Perhaps a compromise might be making luxury passenger transport modules scale in size based on a ships deployment time, since default is 3 months, maybe reducing time lowers the module size up to a set minimum. It would need balancing. There's the downside that it might therefore make sense that longer flights would need larger modules.
There can be no compromise!
Below 3 months makes the design military, making it mildly pointless to use it as a passenger ship, as the maintenance costs suddenly make it worthlessly more expensive than the per-moved-tonnage fuel costs of larger colony ships.
 

Offline Mor

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 305
  • Thanked: 11 times
Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #230 on: March 09, 2016, 04:54:10 PM »
I am not sure whether this feature is of real interest or we got nothing better to discuss... But for what it worth this is how i see it:

* You want smaller and cheaper passenger component for short intra system flights. Currently, there is no way todo it without making Cryo obsolete. Otherwise, you'd need to find away to restrict its usefulness by time.
* Such component makes most sense on extremely short fights, while Aurora turns can extend as far 30days. For which Cryo chambers are far more efficient as they require non of the living quarter necessities, just stack them high.

* Thus your are either going to be forced to crawl or have your fast passenger shuttlets parked in orbit ~29 days out 30. And create some special rules.
* If civs were to use it, this will increase traffic requirements, which the opposite of the direction I observed in latest versions. You'd to update their creation\AI code, deal with pathfinding, which would be limited by their cargo range, and you'd need to make sure your intra-system liners don't become stranded in your home system. Also loading unloading order might need to be updated.. etc


So yeah, I don't think you can fit well within the scope of Aurora mechanics, nor that such a limited use feature worth Steves time. We already have Cryo chambers for either long term colonization operations or basic low-cost fares; And Luxury cambers  for those seeking comfort like private sleeping cabins, minibars, sexy flight attendants, and entertainment. I am going to use my imagination\GM to fill in the rest.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2016, 05:05:41 PM by Mor »
 

Offline Vandermeer

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 961
  • Thanked: 128 times
Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #231 on: March 09, 2016, 06:15:52 PM »
I really approve of the Wh40kyzation coming in here. The multiple Titans, and that Lance beam, which seems exactly like Warhammer lances with their extreme armor piercing, but low dpm. Very interesting, and finally introduces some things that I have since poorly tried to simulate in some past games via 'renaming and pretending'. :)
playing Aurora as swarm fleet: Zen Nomadic Hive Fantasy
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20350 times
Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #232 on: March 09, 2016, 06:26:46 PM »
I really approve of the Wh40kyzation coming in here. The multiple Titans, and that Lance beam, which seems exactly like Warhammer lances with their extreme armor piercing, but low dpm. Very interesting, and finally introduces some things that I have since poorly tried to simulate in some past games via 'renaming and pretending'. :)

I am creating a WH40K Imperium for my campaign so the 'Lance' is not a coincidence :)
 

Offline Vandermeer

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 961
  • Thanked: 128 times
Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #233 on: March 09, 2016, 06:53:16 PM »
I am creating a WH40K Imperium for my campaign so the 'Lance' is not a coincidence :)
I have recently had a Tau game in 7.1 (because their best ship is a large carrier, so I can test carriers against carriers), and plan to redo this later, so something better for their version of lances, ion cannons, is welcome.

I read Mark also plays an Imperium game, and I wanted to make a scenario save file themed that way for a while. Could it be the influence of the upcoming Battlefleet Gothic Armada game, that turns some Aurora players towards this mood currently?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zw5V2O7jQJU
Looks great so far in models, weapon effects, and gameplay modes. If only the ships would feel a bit heavier. I am already itching to calculate the g-forces that must afflict these kilometers long behemoths on the far swinging ends when doing these crazy fast turns shown there. Material properties put a sharp limit on maneuver at this scale, not to mention the people working there, and battleships are already described as being pretty much about the largest propelled built possible with current material, so their maneuver is weak.(some even larger ships like the little larger Planetkiller on the other way are described as having been built partly inside the warp, where physics don't matter much, so they became possible...)
Also: Starcraft-UI. Stealing back from the thieves, classic. ;D
playing Aurora as swarm fleet: Zen Nomadic Hive Fantasy
 

Offline steili

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • s
  • Posts: 26
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #234 on: March 11, 2016, 01:31:29 PM »
Quote from: Mor link=topic=8152. msg87789#msg87789 date=1457564050
I am not sure whether this feature is of real interest or we got nothing better to discuss. . .  But for what it worth this is how i see it:

* You want smaller and cheaper passenger component for short intra system flights.  Currently, there is no way todo it without making Cryo obsolete.  Otherwise, you'd need to find away to restrict its usefulness by time.
* Such component makes most sense on extremely short fights, while Aurora turns can extend as far 30days.  For which Cryo chambers are far more efficient as they require non of the living quarter necessities, just stack them high.

* Thus your are either going to be forced to crawl or have your fast passenger shuttlets parked in orbit ~29 days out 30.  And create some special rules.
* If civs were to use it, this will increase traffic requirements, which the opposite of the direction I observed in latest versions.  You'd to update their creation\AI code, deal with pathfinding, which would be limited by their cargo range, and you'd need to make sure your intra-system liners don't become stranded in your home system.  Also loading unloading order might need to be updated. .  etc


So yeah, I don't think you can fit well within the scope of Aurora mechanics, nor that such a limited use feature worth Steves time.  We already have Cryo chambers for either long term colonization operations or basic low-cost fares; And Luxury cambers  for those seeking comfort like private sleeping cabins, minibars, sexy flight attendants, and entertainment.  I am going to use my imagination\GM to fill in the rest.

Lots of good points against my suggestion here (and in the other posts), and I agree that the addition I suggested might be not add enough to the gameplay to justify a rather complex coding job for Steve. 
 

Offline steili

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • s
  • Posts: 26
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #235 on: March 11, 2016, 01:34:53 PM »
I suggest that an "Land on assigned mothership" default order is added to the list of possible default actions. 

This would make it possible to send out e. g.  fighters to do a job (e. g.  surveying a system) and then have them automatically return to their mothership when the job is done. 

 

Offline 83athom

  • Big Ship Commander
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1261
  • Thanked: 86 times
Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #236 on: March 11, 2016, 08:36:21 PM »
I suggest that an "Land on assigned mothership" default order is added to the list of possible default actions. 

This would make it possible to send out e. g.  fighters to do a job (e. g.  surveying a system) and then have them automatically return to their mothership when the job is done.
2 things. 1) it really only takes 3 extra clicks to make a fighter squad land at their mothership. 2) A suggestion for a new feature goes in the suggestion page. This is for discussing the usefulness/uses of new changes and suggestions for tweaking them.
Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life.
 

Offline steili

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • s
  • Posts: 26
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #237 on: March 11, 2016, 09:14:21 PM »
2 things. 1) it really only takes 3 extra clicks to make a fighter squad land at their mothership. 2) A suggestion for a new feature goes in the suggestion page. This is for discussing the usefulness/uses of new changes and suggestions for tweaking them.

Roger that. I've created a separate topic for my suggestion; http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8423.0
« Last Edit: March 11, 2016, 09:24:41 PM by steili »
 

Offline sloanjh

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 2805
  • Thanked: 112 times
  • 2020 Supporter 2020 Supporter : Donate for 2020
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #238 on: March 14, 2016, 07:12:28 AM »
Roger that. I've created a separate topic for my suggestion; http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8423.0

Aaaand the next bit of feedback is "please put suggestions (and bug reports) in the appropriate official thread, rather than starting a new thread" :)  Steve likes them all in one place.  There's a "Where should I post" thread in FAQ for details.

John
 

Offline Mor

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 305
  • Thanked: 11 times
Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #239 on: March 14, 2016, 08:36:05 PM »
But its not a good way to flash out suggestions over time, and we can always post a link to it in the main thread.