C# Suggestions

[db48x]

There are a fair number of queues in Aurora, but few commonalities between them. The industry, ordinance, and fighter queues all share a common UI, and so they all have the same features.

The other queues all have different UI and generally fewer features.

Some of these differences are justified as being different game mechanics. For example, shipyards generally must be retooled in order to build a different type of ship, so you can't pause the current ship, build another, and then continue the first the way you can with items in the industry queue.

Other differences are not so justifiable. For example, there is no game mechanic that explains why you cannot set your terraformers to add oxygen to the atmosphere now, and then schedule them to start adding water vapor afterwards.

I've prepared a table summarizing the queues and some of their salient characteristics, highlighting in red those items that I do not think have a mechanical justification. These are the ones that could be changed to a "yes" without changing the game mechanics.

Queue Name	Pooled resources?	Multiple items?	Future items?	Change order?	Percentage allocation?
Fleet Orders	yes	yes	yes	no	no
Industry	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes
Ordnance	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes
Fighters	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes
Shipyard	no	yes	no	no	no
Research	partial	yes	yes	partial	partial
Ground Units	no	yes	yes	partial	no
Civilian Contracts	yes	yes	no	no	no
Terraforming	yes	no	no	no	no

Some of these have been suggested individually before, and probably I'm not the first to suggest unifying the features of all the queues as much as possible, even if the UI remains ideosyncratic.

Some of these would be easier than others. For example, with sufficient effort it is actually possible for the shipyard queue(s) to support the case where the current ship is paused and another ship is completed first. If retooling operations were a part of the queue, and the game inserted those operations automatically when the queue was edited, then moving the current ship down in the list would probably insert retooling operations before it and after it. The user would probably change their mind right away, but it would not be impossible to implement.

The terraforming queue has obviously gotten the short end of the stick here, even though terraforming itself has been improved significantly.

[Froggiest1982]

A raise all lower all button for shields so that you don't need to go manually ship by ship.

I know there is an order for it, but I think a button will be more intuitive.

[Droll]

A raise all lower all button for shields so that you don't need to go manually ship by ship.

I know there is an order for it, but I think a button will be more intuitive.

The same but for active sensors as well would be nice - like in VB6

[Ghrathryn]

I'm not sure if this is in the game or not, but with regards to fleets and subfleets, being able to order subfleets to separate to perform tasks on standing orders (IE: you have a fleet of 2+ survey ships you want them to be a single fleet but want them to separate to survey the systems.  Maybe ones geo, the other is grav, or you want them to hit multiple places at once rather than bunch up).

It might also be useful to have the ability to have more than two conditional orders, for example you have a survey ship/fleet jump to a new system with orders to survey bodies and locations, but you also want them to return to refuel once you're below a certain percentage, return if they hit their deployment clock and if they run low on MSP.  You're also sending them into new territory, so you want to be able to have them immediately take evasive action/retreat should an unknown or known hostile ship appear on their sensors.

You could also potentially expand the two primary standing orders into a more complex thing which might allow things like ordering a ship to survey planets primary, then moons, and only after that comets/asteroids or have colony ships follow a specific order for where to hunt for potential colonists, or deal with automated warp transits during a mission ala gathering minerals from a mining colony in one system and shunting them back to the capital in another.

It depends on how deep you want to go, although I would possibly recommend having a way to have standing orders pause instead of wipe if they cannot be met at the moment to allow things like automated rescue, salvage, building transport, survey, etc to stick (particularly if you've got early game geosurvey/grav survey and want them to automatically hitch a ride with a jump tender without having to reset all their standing orders for each new system for example).

Another potentially useful thing to have in, on ground forces this time, is the ability to lock formations together so for example you have three 1-5kt formations with a particular superior and you want to shunt them to a new world to guard or attack.  Being able to lock the combined formation would be useful in making them use the same transport fleet and in reducing micro on the other side since you don't have the companies become unattached from their battalion during transport and need to set them back up on the other end, when they maybe under fire.

[TheTalkingMeowth]

A raise all lower all button for shields so that you don't need to go manually ship by ship.

I know there is an order for it, but I think a button will be more intuitive.

Can't you multiselect then use the existing button? I thought that worked.

[Droll]

A raise all lower all button for shields so that you don't need to go manually ship by ship.

I know there is an order for it, but I think a button will be more intuitive.

Can't you multiselect then use the existing button? I thought that worked.

As far as I know no such button exists in C#. Though it wouldn't be the first time I missed a UI element

[TheTalkingMeowth]

Derp, replied to the wrong post.

I meant for active sensors. The activate sensors button applies to all the ships selected on the fleet tab, I'm pretty sure.

[Migi]

I have approximately 3 small suggestions:

1) I would like to be able to set a default field position for each template.
When a template is built it is automatically assigned to that position, after that it has no further effect.
There are a lot of rear and support elements that are never going to need to be assigned to any other position, being able to set their position during creation would save quite a bit of micromanagement.

2) I would like to be able set targeting for STO's more easily.
2a) Like field position, I think that having a default value which is assigned when the unit is built would go some way towards addressing this (although it might need to be set on the unit rather than the template because a template can have more than 1 STO in it).
2b) I would like the ability to copy existing settings to other units, in the same way we can copy fire control setup to ships in the same fleet (body in this case), system or empire-wide.
2c) I think being able to select more than 1 STO at a time in that window would be very helpful. Given that most lists in game don't support multi-select I am guessing this would either require some extra programming you don't want to spend time on or don't know how to do but I thought I would mention it anyway.
2d) I would like the option of having the STO targeting window show the STO's in a location tree like the Order of Battle window.

3) Currently static and infantry units can't use autocannons, and I would like to be able to do so.
Is there a reason for this or is it an oversight?

If I've missed something obvious feel free to point it out.

[nuclearslurpee]

I have approximately 3 small suggestions:

Might be 2.9, might be 3.1, we can't be sure, but it's about 3. 

1) I would like to be able to set a default field position for each template.
When a template is built it is automatically assigned to that position, after that it has no further effect.
There are a lot of rear and support elements that are never going to need to be assigned to any other position, being able to set their position during creation would save quite a bit of micromanagement.

Seconded. One of the more annoying bits of game setup for me especially with a larger BP limit.

[DIT_grue]

Zap0 started a discussion about the inconsistency in the cost of repairing a ship depending on whether you use a shipyard or the onboard damage-control.

[Froggiest1982]

A raise all lower all button for shields so that you don't need to go manually ship by ship.

I know there is an order for it, but I think a button will be more intuitive.

Can't you multiselect then use the existing button? I thought that worked.

As far as I know no such button exists in C#. Though it wouldn't be the first time I missed a UI element

There is a button if you select a ship with shields in the ship UI on the side of the combat slide (where you also have MFC and FC buttons). I havent tried to multiselect yet, it's just seems like a lot of non required clicks though...

[aks2161989]

Steve, first I would like to thank you for creating this game.  Its completely different from what I have played so far.  Reading the threads here, I know that you don't intend to add support for smaller screen resolutions (which is fine considering you probably have to work on other important tasks).  But, could you please add scroll-bars to every window? That would be great for those of us playing on smaller resolutions.

Currently I am using AuroraMod to add scroll bars, but it would be great if the default game  had scroll bars.

[Drakale]

I have approximately 3 small suggestions:

1) I would like to be able to set a default field position for each template.
When a template is built it is automatically assigned to that position, after that it has no further effect.
There are a lot of rear and support elements that are never going to need to be assigned to any other position, being able to set their position during creation would save quite a bit of micromanagement.

That would be insanely useful. Also the ability to multiselect in the army tab and set position would help cut down on clicking. I made a complex army organisation structure in my current game and I like the granularity a lot, but the amount of work it takes is pretty insane, a lot of it is going unit by unit and setuping the proper position.

[Borealis4x]

Probably too complicated, but it'd be super cool if the game was designed to model all levels of officers, starting from Ensign all the way to Fleet Admiral. The way this would work is that every ship would need certain billets to be filled by default by lower-ranking officer (Department Heads, Co-Pilot on small craft, etc) and then on top of that every part you add to a ship needs a certain amount of officers to work properly (fire controls, engines, hangars, cargo shuttle bays, active sensors, ELINT etc). Frankly, I think the XO and Chief Engineer should present on every ship you build above 1000 tons at the very least.

Currently officers start of as way too young, as the game models them as being mid-level officers (Senior LTs, Commanders) but they all start out at 21. Adding in more opportunities for multiple lower-ranking officers to serve on a ship would be extremely cool from an immersion and storytelling perspective.

[nuclearslurpee]

Probably too complicated, but it'd be super cool if the game was designed to model all levels of officers, starting from Ensign all the way to Fleet Admiral. The way this would work is that every ship would need certain billets to be filled by default by lower-ranking officer (Department Heads, Co-Pilot on small craft, etc) and then on top of that every part you add to a ship needs a certain amount of officers to work properly (fire controls, engines, hangars, cargo shuttle bays, etc). Frankly, I think the XO and Chief Engineer should present on every ship you build above 1000 tons at the very least.

Currently officers start of as way too young, as the game models them as being mid-level officers (Senior LTs, Commanders) but they all start out at 21. Adding in more opportunities for multiple lower-ranking officers to serve on a ship would be extremely cool from an immersion and storytelling perspective.

Not to be a Debbie Downer, but in addition to adding complication for questionable game benefits I do want to point out that this system would be absolute Hell to use if you play without automatic assignments, or even if you do but also do a lot of manual work because you don't trust the system.

If the problem is that officers are too young, a simpler solution is to either change the default starting age to 30 or 35, or to decouple age from career length entirely and have age be another randomly-generated starting trait. Personally I headcanon that my leaders don't start at age 20/21, rather this is their career length to date and they've been promoted to a senior officer role after a couple decades climbing the ropes.