C# Suggestions

[QuakeIV]

I never noticed because I don't really use magazines, larger is actually less likely to explode?  It seems like that aught to be the opposite...

[xenoscepter]

Nerf the missile neutralization tech line.
At max level I'm making magazines that have a 0.1% chance to explode (and that doesn't even account for chief engineer modifiers). This means that my ammunition storage full of nuclear warheads is somehow less likely to explode than my engine or reactor. There is absolutely no point to use the internal magazine armor for this reason.

I've also noticed that larger magazines have less of a chance to explode, maybe remove that too.

Maybe the best it gets is 60%-75%? It would nerf the short range assault potential of missiles since their parent ships would be powder kegs while also weakening AMM PD.

Regardless I believe that missile storage on combat ships is too safe.

 - Your at Maximum Tech, of course it's absurd. Even at Maximum Tech magazine armor isn't useless as it increases the HtK of the magazines making them draw more Internal Damage away from engines and reactors and such. They don't need to be nerfed, you just need to play at a lower tech level if you want to be more vulnerable. The game changes drastically at certain tech levels; Ion, Fusion, and Anti-Matter propulsions are the benchmarks most often used, but generally above 40,000 RP is where the game really starts shifting. If your burning through the tech levels, consider reducing your research rate, or using a lower mineral modifier or starting with less pop.

 - Also, if we want to be ultra-realistic your stockpile of nuclear weapons should never explode no matter how much you shoot them because nuclear weapons are inert until armed AND detonated... and even then they sometimes fail to denotate properly. If anything, damage to them should render them less explosive, not more. To be short, I disagree, a lot.

[Droll]

When a civilian shipping line is created - there should be a chance that it appears on a large established colony (100m pop?) instead of just spawning on earth

Only complication is if there is a lack of stabilized routes to earth/other colonies AND the system in question only has one colony (so no interplanetary trade)

[Droll]

Nerf the missile neutralization tech line.
At max level I'm making magazines that have a 0.1% chance to explode (and that doesn't even account for chief engineer modifiers). This means that my ammunition storage full of nuclear warheads is somehow less likely to explode than my engine or reactor. There is absolutely no point to use the internal magazine armor for this reason.

I've also noticed that larger magazines have less of a chance to explode, maybe remove that too.

Maybe the best it gets is 60%-75%? It would nerf the short range assault potential of missiles since their parent ships would be powder kegs while also weakening AMM PD.

Regardless I believe that missile storage on combat ships is too safe.

 - Your at Maximum Tech, of course it's absurd. Even at Maximum Tech magazine armor isn't useless as it increases the HtK of the magazines making them draw more Internal Damage away from engines and reactors and such. They don't need to be nerfed, you just need to play at a lower tech level if you want to be more vulnerable. The game changes drastically at certain tech levels; Ion, Fusion, and Anti-Matter propulsions are the benchmarks most often used, but generally above 40,000 RP is where the game really starts shifting. If your burning through the tech levels, consider reducing your research rate, or using a lower mineral modifier or starting with less pop.

 - Also, if we want to be ultra-realistic your stockpile of nuclear weapons should never explode no matter how much you shoot them because nuclear weapons are inert until armed AND detonated... and even then they sometimes fail to denotate properly. If anything, damage to them should render them less explosive, not more. To be short, I disagree, a lot.

But I don't want to play at lower tech levels, albeit I see your point I think I should modify my suggestion - the minimum level of magazine neutralization should be much lower IMO, make it start at like 15% and then let it go up to 99%. That way I have the choice of limiting myself in the design process while you can have your standard levels.

My point about larger magazines somehow being less explosive stands though, I think that should be changed so that size has no effect - or instead make it based on how full the magazine was at the time of explosion (which I think is already factored in?).

Honestly though - even at ion levels assuming you only have the first level, 75% ejection still seems to high to me for entry level.

As for the realism point, sure nukes are pretty inert - but these are space nukes! 

[xenoscepter]

 - But, you still have the choice. You can design magazines with less neutralization tech.

[Droll]

- But, you still have the choice. You can design magazines with less neutralization tech.

Honestly though - even at ion levels assuming you only have the first level, 75% ejection still seems to high to me for entry level.

I just realized that the minimum is 70% and not 75% - my point still stands. Even at their worst the highest explosion chance for a magazine is 30%, what I'm saying is that even that is too low.
Not only that this chance is for an HS1 magazine, most magazines are larger and this pushes that % even lower. This is on the lowest neutralization tech, so no I don't have that choice.

[xenoscepter]

- But, you still have the choice. You can design magazines with less neutralization tech.

The minimum is 75% as I've already said - which I think is too generous/safe

 - The minimum is 70%, but yeah that does seem rather generous... I recall Steve mentioning that in the changelog though, now that you bring it up. The idea was that explosions would be less frequent, but more devastating. It was, IIRC, an answer to VB6 having far too many explosions overall... like H.M.S. Hood, but instead of a lucky shot to one ship it's your entire fleet and it happens a lot.

[Droll]

- But, you still have the choice. You can design magazines with less neutralization tech.

The minimum is 75% as I've already said - which I think is too generous/safe

 - The minimum is 70%, but yeah that does seem rather generous... I recall Steve mentioning that in the changelog though, now that you bring it up. The idea was that explosions would be less frequent, but more devastating. It was, IIRC, an answer to VB6 having far too many explosions overall... like U.S.S. Hood, but instead of a lucky shot to one ship it's your entire fleet and it happens a lot.

Was editing the post as you sent this lol. Also you most likely are thinking of the H.M.S Hood, unless there is an American doppleganger im unaware of.
I think it wouldn't be too bad if magazine size didn't also reduce the chance of detonation.

[xenoscepter]

- But, you still have the choice. You can design magazines with less neutralization tech.

The minimum is 75% as I've already said - which I think is too generous/safe

 - The minimum is 70%, but yeah that does seem rather generous... I recall Steve mentioning that in the changelog though, now that you bring it up. The idea was that explosions would be less frequent, but more devastating. It was, IIRC, an answer to VB6 having far too many explosions overall... like U.S.S. Hood, but instead of a lucky shot to one ship it's your entire fleet and it happens a lot.

Was editing the post as you sent this lol. Also you most likely are thinking of the H.M.S Hood, unless there is an American doppleganger im unaware of.

I was originally going to reference the U.S.S. Arizona, but about 60% of the way through I realized that H.M.S. Hood was a better one. 

[QuakeIV]

Strictly if you have very high radiation weapons then you might cause a premature ignition on a nuclear warhead.  Generally speaking if you detonate a nuclear bomb with any of todays conventional weapons there is no real change of it going off (well, the explosives for the fission bomb might detonate but its unlikely to produce a nuclear explosion), however for instance shooting nukes at nukes might actually get a reaction.

[xenoscepter]

Strictly if you have very high radiation weapons then you might cause a premature ignition on a nuclear warhead.  Generally speaking if you detonate a nuclear bomb with any of todays conventional weapons there is no real change of it going off (well, the explosives for the fission bomb might detonate but its unlikely to produce a nuclear explosion), however for instance shooting nukes at nukes might actually get a reaction.

 - So, instead of having a higher minimum magazine, we could have enhanced radiation warheads that could potentially damage magazines and intentionally cause said explosions? I'd like that!

[Kristover]

<Repost from original thread>

I tend to play Aurora as an RPG and I love playing with the officer system, hierarchies, and medals.  One thing I note is after several C+ games is some of the medal conditions are difficult to achieve if you are using realistic promotions.  None of my officers stay in position long enough to meet some of the gates like discovering 1000 bodies with minerals.  I would like some additional conditions to allow me to create additional and achievable medals and judging off a look at the DB it seems like it would be easy to add with no new coding.  Request the following conditions be added:

Destroy 500,000 tons of Military Shipping
Destroy 5,000,0000 tons of Commercial Shipping
Destroy 250,000 tons of Hostile Ground Forces

(In some of my longer games I have created some super warships whose Captains have come close to achieving these conditions)

Participate in Three Combat Drops (both formation & transport)
Participate in 10 Combat Drops (both formation & transport)

(I find that especially my transports reach 5 drops pretty easily and my specialized marine ground forces will reach 3 to 5 clearing a single system)

Destroy 500 Hostile Missiles
Destroy 2500 Hostile Missiles

(I haven't had any Commander hit 2500 hostile missiles but I have had a few hit 1000 and get quite a bit over it)

Survive 3 Ship Destructions

(I had a Commander recently reach this distinction and I thought it should be recognized)

Discover 3 New Star Systems
Discover 5 New Star Systems

(Very few of my Survey Captains stay in position long enough to discover 10 new star systems - it has happened - and none reached 25.  I would like gradations of 3 & 5 because enough of my survey Captains reach these marks)

Discover 1 System Bodies with Minerals
Discover 10 System Bodies with Minerals
Discover 50 System Bodies with Minerals

(This is the one which I had the most issues.  I think I had a Commander ONCE reach 100 system bodies with minerals because he discovered two systems with couple hundred asteroids and he stayed in an abnormally long time.  I haven't yet had a single Commander even get a quarter of a way to 1000.  1, 10, 50, 100 seems like a right set of achievable gates)

Discover 1 Jump Point
Discover 3 Jump Points
Discover 5 Jumps Points

(100 JPs is not achievable unless you are immortal.  I haven't had a Commander yet hit 10.  Most only hit 1 to 3 before the automated promotions send them onward).

Stabilise 5 Jump Points or Lagrange Points

(Purely to keep it roughly in line with the Discover JP hierarchy)

Recover 1 Abandoned Installations

(On some of the smaller alien ruins, there might be only a few installations recoverable and if there is more than one Engineering unit present, the Commander only might get 1 installation)

Five years of Service, Ten years of Service, Fifteen years of Service, Twenty years of Service, Twenty-Five years of Service, Thirty Years of Service, Thirty-Five years of Service, Forty Years of Service

(Not strictly necessary - I would be fine with keeping 10,20,30 - but I think I would like to see gradations of five because it would tell me a bit more about length of service and give each officer a shot at more bling)

[QuakeIV]

Strictly if you have very high radiation weapons then you might cause a premature ignition on a nuclear warhead.  Generally speaking if you detonate a nuclear bomb with any of todays conventional weapons there is no real change of it going off (well, the explosives for the fission bomb might detonate but its unlikely to produce a nuclear explosion), however for instance shooting nukes at nukes might actually get a reaction.

 - So, instead of having a higher minimum magazine, we could have enhanced radiation warheads that could potentially damage magazines and intentionally cause said explosions? I'd like that!

That is not what I meant by that at all (I was just remarking that in general the games high power weapons are more likely to set smeg off) but it is a really cool idea.  Maybe a function of enhanced radiation warheads could be to greatnly enhance the odds of missile and power system secondary explosions.

[Droll]

Strictly if you have very high radiation weapons then you might cause a premature ignition on a nuclear warhead.  Generally speaking if you detonate a nuclear bomb with any of todays conventional weapons there is no real change of it going off (well, the explosives for the fission bomb might detonate but its unlikely to produce a nuclear explosion), however for instance shooting nukes at nukes might actually get a reaction.

 - So, instead of having a higher minimum magazine, we could have enhanced radiation warheads that could potentially damage magazines and intentionally cause said explosions? I'd like that!

This is brilliant because it provides a use-case for enhanced radiation missiles in ship-to-ship combat. You could use them on a missile ship with weakened armor to try and detonate the magazine.

[Froggiest1982]

Custom Water Requirements.