C# Suggestions

[Dutchling]

Suggestion: An option in the Galaxy Map to see the distance in LY between systems, similar to the current in-game distance.

[Zap0]

I'm having four tankers of the same type, three ran out of fuel, one hasn't. There's no way for me that I can see to make them equalize/share their fuel.

[Demonides]

Suggestion: An option in the Galaxy Map to see the distance in LY between systems, similar to the current in-game distance.

[Demonides]

I'm having four tankers of the same type, three ran out of fuel, one hasn't. There's no way for me that I can see to make them equalize/share their fuel.

In C# Aurora, refuelling is no longer instant and ships without specialised equipment cannot exchange fuel in space. A ship can only refuel at a Spaceport, a Refuelling Station, a ship with a Refuelling System or a base with a Refuelling Hub.

http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg97525#msg97525

http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=10666.0

[skoormit]

I'm having four tankers of the same type, three ran out of fuel, one hasn't. There's no way for me that I can see to make them equalize/share their fuel.

Detach the tanker with fuel from the fleet.
Give the other three orders to refuel from it.
Manually monitor the fuel levels until equalized (or roughly), then rejoin the fourth tanker to the fleet.

[Panopticon]

It'd probably be a huge pain to code but the Imperium AAR has been making me want to see some mechanic for forgetting tech.

Some mechanic, maybe time based, or perhaps based on scientists dying or something would give a chance for your empire to "forget" a particular tech, like Magneto-Plasma engines or something, they, and all the stuff dependent on it becomes unavailable outside of whatever you have in use and you either have to reverse engineer it back or discover it in ruins or with conquest to get it back.

It would make for a fun mix of ship styles and some neat gameplay choices, do you send in your best ships on the jump point assault and risk losing the last example of Antimatter reactors in your fleet? Or do you use your newer weaker ships and risk failing entirely?

[Drakale]

I am playing with fighter based operations lately and one of the things I would really like to see at some point in the future is some kind of countermeasure system for light crafts.

The main reason I suggest this is the extreme vulnerability of fighters to AMM. Don't get me wrong, AMM should be a deadly threat to fighters, but at the moment they are basically certain death even in modest quantities. Even missiles designed to kill capital ships are fairly effective at killing fighters which I think is a bit counter intuitive. One can design crafts to stay out of missile/sensor range, and indeed that is kind of the only real build that work against a sizeable force for strike fighters.

The way I would imagine it is basically a personal range only amm that use lightweight ammo. The System itself is a comparable to a mini size 1 launcher. The amount of countermeasure launcher would determine how many evade attempts can be made per salvo increments(probably more than 5sec at start depending on tech level). The system can only be mounted on fighters(500 ton and <) since it rely on maneuverability and sensor overload. Technically it would be cool to separate the countermeasure in chaff/flares and the likes, but I fear this would make it quite a bit of a management hell, not to mention much harder to implement. I would just assume the countermeasure are designed to deal with thermal/grav/EM guidances at the same time.

The countermeasure launch would be automatic when the closest targeting missile get within a certain configurable range. The countermeasure affect all missiles currently targeting the craft within a range defined by tech level(about 200 k I would say at low tech level). At that point a roll is made and the affected missiles have a certain % chance to get misdirected, effectively destroying it. To keep it simple I would use a flat % dependent on tech(50%, 60%, 70% or something to that effect).

I am thinking fighters could carry 5 countermeasure per dedicated storage ton, but that might be too much. Keep in mind the system can launch multiples countermeasure per increment with more than one launcher, making more evade rolls. The countermeasure are replenished with MSP when landed at a carrier(not from on board MSP).

For an example scenario, a fighter is currently targeted by 20 missiles from 4 different waves of 5 each. The closest wave is within the configured 50k countermeasure activation range, causing the fighter to automatically launch a salvo. The second wave is within the 200k max effect range so it will also be affected, but the 3rd and 4th waves are out of range so entirely unaffected. The fighter has 2 launcher with a flat 60% chance to misdirect. So for each of the 10 affected missiles 2 rolls are made and any successful roll will (effectively)destroy the missile. Surviving missiles will then continue on their way or try and hit if they would reach this increment.

So with a squadron equipped with this system, there is now a meaningful choice when a wave of missiles show up on scanner. You can push on into firing range or try and get out of reach. You will still probably lose the squad if you ventured too far but this get you a fighting chance.

I realize that fighters are already strong, but this would exchange firepower for some measure of protection. The "strong" fighter design in the current version never get into missile range anyway, this would make a larger array of fighter roles viable.

Thanks for listening to my TED talk.

[clew]

I'm sure this has been stated before but I would like to request the return of the "Destroy Missile" button.  As it stands, there's no way to remove a misplaced or messed up buoy or survey missile.

[Droll]

I am playing with fighter based operations lately and one of the things I would really like to see at some point in the future is some kind of countermeasure system for light crafts.

The main reason I suggest this is the extreme vulnerability of fighters to AMM. Don't get me wrong, AMM should be a deadly threat to fighters, but at the moment they are basically certain death even in modest quantities. Even missiles designed to kill capital ships are fairly effective at killing fighters which I think is a bit counter intuitive. One can design crafts to stay out of missile/sensor range, and indeed that is kind of the only real build that work against a sizeable force for strike fighters.

The way I would imagine it is basically a personal range only amm that use lightweight ammo. The System itself is a comparable to a mini size 1 launcher. The amount of countermeasure launcher would determine how many evade attempts can be made per salvo increments(probably more than 5sec at start depending on tech level). The system can only be mounted on fighters(500 ton and <) since it rely on maneuverability and sensor overload. Technically it would be cool to separate the countermeasure in chaff/flares and the likes, but I fear this would make it quite a bit of a management hell, not to mention much harder to implement. I would just assume the countermeasure are designed to deal with thermal/grav/EM guidances at the same time.

The countermeasure launch would be automatic when the closest targeting missile get within a certain configurable range. The countermeasure affect all missiles currently targeting the craft within a range defined by tech level(about 200 k I would say at low tech level). At that point a roll is made and the affected missiles have a certain % chance to get misdirected, effectively destroying it. To keep it simple I would use a flat % dependent on tech(50%, 60%, 70% or something to that effect).

I am thinking fighters could carry 5 countermeasure per dedicated storage ton, but that might be too much. Keep in mind the system can launch multiples countermeasure per increment with more than one launcher, making more evade rolls. The countermeasure are replenished with MSP when landed at a carrier(not from on board MSP).

For an example scenario, a fighter is currently targeted by 20 missiles from 4 different waves of 5 each. The closest wave is within the configured 50k countermeasure activation range, causing the fighter to automatically launch a salvo. The second wave is within the 200k max effect range so it will also be affected, but the 3rd and 4th waves are out of range so entirely unaffected. The fighter has 2 launcher with a flat 60% chance to misdirect. So for each of the 10 affected missiles 2 rolls are made and any successful roll will (effectively)destroy the missile. Surviving missiles will then continue on their way or try and hit if they would reach this increment.

So with a squadron equipped with this system, there is now a meaningful choice when a wave of missiles show up on scanner. You can push on into firing range or try and get out of reach. You will still probably lose the squad if you ventured too far but this get you a fighting chance.

I realize that fighters are already strong, but this would exchange firepower for some measure of protection. The "strong" fighter design in the current version never get into missile range anyway, this would make a larger array of fighter roles viable.

Thanks for listening to my TED talk.

+1, as you said this is not really buff for missile fighters who will avoid AMM ranges altogether but it makes smol beamy bois like meson fighters have much stronger endurance against fleets.

Making beam fighters better at engaging fleets might also make interceptors become viable as actual anti-fighter craft who and instead fill in instead of secondary batteries and AMMs.

Its important to note that firing AMMs at fighters results in AMMs that can no longer be fired on hostile missiles.

[Droll]

I've been thinking of an idea to facilitate longer range missiles, specifically LRAMMs (Long Range AMM). Instead of making MFCs stronger, allowing MFCs to "take over" missiles in flight and guide them to a target.

As a case example of what I mean, consider a scenario where an orbital AMM platform is firing 2-stage LRAMMs against a salvo that is fired at nearby shipping, the stations MFC lacks the range to lock on to the missiles so instead fires the missiles towards a waypoint in the direction of the incoming salvo.

Near that waypoint is a fighter/ship with no missile launchers but equipped with MFC(s) that are within tracking range of the salvo. When the LRAMMs are near the waypoint, the player can assign the missiles in flight to the MFC(s) of the fighter and assign the target as the incoming salvo allowing the fighter to provide terminal guidance to the LRAMMs which will then incercept the salvo.

This would only be possible in the presence of strong thermal detection however since Active sensors against size 6 missiles and smaller lacks the range for this to be useful.

Right now proper PD area defense on a large scale isnt really possible especially since adding range to AMMs doesnt make sense as most NPR missiles can only be tracked at sub 10m km ranges (owing to their <6 MSP size).

[Erik L]

I am sure this has been suggested prior, but an autosave feature. Maybe every thirty days, it triggers the save routine.

Second suggestion for beam FC. As standard up to their size and range. From range to 2x range, hit chances are 50%, 2x to 4x range, hit chances are 25%. 4x to 10x, hit chances are 10%. Maybe 10x to weapon max range the hit chances are 1%.

[Barkhorn]

I wouldn't be surprised if this has already been suggested, but I'm bringing it up anyways because how it currently works is weird and annoying.

Why not unify all the design UI styles?  Why do some fields, like engine size, have extremely long drop-down lists while other fields, like turret tracking speed, allow us to type arbitrary values in?  Why not have all fields allow arbitrary values?

Likewise, the way BFC's work is weird.  Why can we only choose a handful of size multipliers?  Why not let us choose any arbitrary tracking speed and range we want, and calculate the size of the BFC from that?  I'm not arguing to change how BFC's work, just how we design them.

[Droll]

I am sure this has been suggested prior, but an autosave feature. Maybe every thirty days, it triggers the save routine.

Second suggestion for beam FC. As standard up to their size and range. From range to 2x range, hit chances are 50%, 2x to 4x range, hit chances are 25%. 4x to 10x, hit chances are 10%. Maybe 10x to weapon max range the hit chances are 1%.

If an autosave feature makes it into vanilla aurora, I would like to be able to turn it off/configure the frequency though.

[Jorgen_CAB]

I've been thinking of an idea to facilitate longer range missiles, specifically LRAMMs (Long Range AMM). Instead of making MFCs stronger, allowing MFCs to "take over" missiles in flight and guide them to a target.

As a case example of what I mean, consider a scenario where an orbital AMM platform is firing 2-stage LRAMMs against a salvo that is fired at nearby shipping, the stations MFC lacks the range to lock on to the missiles so instead fires the missiles towards a waypoint in the direction of the incoming salvo.

Near that waypoint is a fighter/ship with no missile launchers but equipped with MFC(s) that are within tracking range of the salvo. When the LRAMMs are near the waypoint, the player can assign the missiles in flight to the MFC(s) of the fighter and assign the target as the incoming salvo allowing the fighter to provide terminal guidance to the LRAMMs which will then incercept the salvo.

This would only be possible in the presence of strong thermal detection however since Active sensors against size 6 missiles and smaller lacks the range for this to be useful.

Right now proper PD area defence on a large scale isnt really possible especially since adding range to AMMs doesnt make sense as most NPR missiles can only be tracked at sub 10m km ranges (owing to their <6 MSP size).

In 1.12 you will be able to easily deploy escorts, you can easily deploy several small fighter scouts to extend your AMM detection bubble quite far out... then you can definitely design some long range AMM and engage at a much further distance.

Not saying your suggestion is a bad one, just saying it will be allot easier to pull of in 1.12 when that is released.

[Droll]

I've been thinking of an idea to facilitate longer range missiles, specifically LRAMMs (Long Range AMM). Instead of making MFCs stronger, allowing MFCs to "take over" missiles in flight and guide them to a target.

As a case example of what I mean, consider a scenario where an orbital AMM platform is firing 2-stage LRAMMs against a salvo that is fired at nearby shipping, the stations MFC lacks the range to lock on to the missiles so instead fires the missiles towards a waypoint in the direction of the incoming salvo.

Near that waypoint is a fighter/ship with no missile launchers but equipped with MFC(s) that are within tracking range of the salvo. When the LRAMMs are near the waypoint, the player can assign the missiles in flight to the MFC(s) of the fighter and assign the target as the incoming salvo allowing the fighter to provide terminal guidance to the LRAMMs which will then incercept the salvo.

This would only be possible in the presence of strong thermal detection however since Active sensors against size 6 missiles and smaller lacks the range for this to be useful.

Right now proper PD area defence on a large scale isnt really possible especially since adding range to AMMs doesnt make sense as most NPR missiles can only be tracked at sub 10m km ranges (owing to their <6 MSP size).

In 1.12 you will be able to easily deploy escorts, you can easily deploy several small fighter scouts to extend your AMM detection bubble quite far out... then you can definitely design some long range AMM and engage at a much further distance.

Not saying your suggestion is a bad one, just saying it will be allot easier to pull of in 1.12 when that is released.

For detection this has always been possible - the issue is not detection its FC target aquisition. Those fighters can see the missiles but they cannot provide terminal guidance with their own MFCs. Normally this is not an issue as MFC ranges are quite high however with AMMs the target lock range for size 6 and smaller missiles can be somewhat restrictive. At least for the purposes of providing area defense with AMMs which is their main appeal.