C# Suggestions

[serger]

It seems I have failed to provide understandable explanation of what and why I have proposed. Let me try to reformulate it.

Random targetting leads to the effect we discuss here only in combination with an ability to "change lines" during combat. You see masses of enemy infantry and/or light vehicles - you bring your infantry and AP vehicles. You see "naked" armored machines - you bring your AV weapons.

What I proposed - is to effectively take away this ability to change lines. During subphase fights player will have no ability to change front line forces. Iterative fights during long combat phase will bring a necessity to keep every frontline formation mixed, because if your formation will have only AP weapons - it will win first subphases and fail against armored core of enemy formation in the end, and if your formation will have only AV weapons - it'll fail at the beginning. Bring random division of local battle groups - and you'll have much more dispersion of probable results, so lesser temptation of micro-calculating even if you have full knowledge of enemy forces (though this calculation will be available for those, who can do such things, but it will give them lesser advantage per hour of math work, and they'll have no obvious, easy, boring solution from the first glance, that we are obliged to close our eyes at, if we have to play with more interesting formations). This semi-random division of locations and iterations of fights will also bring deeper, however nearly hidden battle stories at the background - we'll know why we must send mixed forces, we'll have no need to close our eyes an envision things that will contradict with game screen. It will be just more RP-ish battle mechanics per se.

[nuclearslurpee]

It seems I have failed to provide understandable explanation of what and why I have proposed. Let me try to reformulate it.

Random targetting leads to the effect we discuss here only in combination with an ability to "change lines" during combat. You see masses of enemy infantry and/or light vehicles - you bring your infantry and AP vehicles. You see "naked" armored machines - you bring your AV weapons.

What I proposed - is to effectively take away this ability to change lines. During subphase fights player will have no ability to change front line forces. Iterative fights during long combat phase will bring a necessity to keep every frontline formation mixed, because if your formation will have only AP weapons - it will win first subphases and fail against armored core of enemy formation in the end, and if your formation will have only AV weapons - it'll fail at the beginning. Bring random division of local battle groups - and you'll have much more dispersion of probable results, so lesser temptation of micro-calculating even if you have full knowledge of enemy forces (though this calculation will be available for those, who can do such things, but it will give them lesser advantage per hour of math work, and they'll have no obvious, easy, boring solution from the first glance, that we are obliged to close our eyes at, if we have to play with more interesting formations). This semi-random division of locations and iterations of fights will also bring deeper, however nearly hidden battle stories at the background - we'll know why we must send mixed forces, we'll have no need to close our eyes an envision things that will contradict with game screen. It will be just more RP-ish battle mechanics per se.

This sounds complex and difficult to implement. How is a "subphase" defined? Why can't a player (or AI, maybe someday...) move their forces around at will? Logically this makes little sense as a round of ground combat is 8 hours which is plenty of time for a battlefield commander to order a retreat or the reserves forward. It seems like this is arbitrarily taking away the ability for a player to control their forces except at specific intervals, and I'm not a big fan of taking options away from the player to force a desired outcome.

Additionally, it seems like this random division actually forces mixed-element formations, at the exclusion of a capability to deploy a mix of like-element formations. That is, if I would like to build brigades with 2x INF battalions and 1x ARM battalions, this random division means I risk having INF in one "subphase" and my ARM in a separate one - meaning that if I want to ensure a combined arms battle I must build mixed-element formations instead of separate tank, infantry, etc. battalions intended to work together.

Finally this seems like it either requires a new interface for ground combat (i.e. more complications) or else makes the results even more opaque to the player. As complex of a game as Aurora is, it benefits significantly from simplicity of the individual moving parts. This does not mesh well with that design philosophy.

I strongly prefer Jorgen's suggestion about a rule which prevents or limits heavy weapons from firing at small targets. This is a simple change that solves most of the existing mechanical issues while preserving player agency and RP ability. No need to overcomplicate things when a simple tweak will solve it.

[papent]

it would be easier for all to follow suggestions/discussion of ground combat if it was forked to another thread.

[serger]

I strongly prefer Jorgen's suggestion about a rule which prevents or limits heavy weapons from firing at small targets. This is a simple change that solves most of the existing mechanical issues while preserving player agency and RP ability. No need to overcomplicate things when a simple tweak will solve it.

Personally I prefer this too. But Steve obviously doesn't go this way (I don't know why, there must be some reasons), so I proposed to go the way Steve already moved, but to move farther.

[nuclearslurpee]

I strongly prefer Jorgen's suggestion about a rule which prevents or limits heavy weapons from firing at small targets. This is a simple change that solves most of the existing mechanical issues while preserving player agency and RP ability. No need to overcomplicate things when a simple tweak will solve it.

Personally I prefer this too. But Steve obviously doesn't go this way (I don't know why, there must be some reasons), so I proposed to go the way Steve already moved, but to move farther.

I think we should have patience with Steve. The entire ground forces system is completely new in C#, and Steve has spent some time making improvements but he has limited time, and this kind of change would require a lot of testing to figure out the right formula for the rule. Usually if Steve has not done something, the reason is either "he doesn't want to" (and often he will say so) or "he hasn't had time yet", and as we have no evidence of the former we should prefer the latter. 

[kingflute]

Instead of mounting weapon systems to fighters and small craft during design, allow us to add 'hardpoints' which can mount weapons and other systems, such as ECM or refuelling, etc...

[Jorgen_CAB]

Instead of mounting weapon systems to fighters and small craft during design, allow us to add 'hardpoints' which can mount weapons and other systems, such as ECM or refuelling, etc...

If this were implemented in some form it could not be for small crafts only but for all ships. Fighters in Aurora are not the difference between a jet fighter and a naval ship, they are all the same. Steve have been quite thorough during the development of C# to not build exceptions to different rules bit consistent general rules and mechanics.

Not saying it is a bad idea... I would like for ships to have possibility for more modular components as that is realistic.

I also would like to have a system of a bit more restriction when building ships to as to some degree we have a bit too much freedom sometimes which sometimes actually limit our actual choices as there are too many bad ones. I would like some hull integrity value to be applied and different components will require different hull integrity or that components will require more or less space consideration in regards to internal or external positioning. Some components would compete more for the same space others will not etc... this way a "figter" would have more external space than internal than for example a 10kt Destroyer would, for the same reason how armour work... Armour would take both its space from external and from internal, but in actuality that usually mean less space available from external components in relation to its size.

Anyway... more modular components would be nice. Values for hull integrity and weight to satisfy it (based on technology) and a difference of internal and external space for components would make ship design even more interesting in my opinion. More complex... yes... but I think we could handle it.

[liveware]

Instead of mounting weapon systems to fighters and small craft during design, allow us to add 'hardpoints' which can mount weapons and other systems, such as ECM or refuelling, etc...

If this were implemented in some form it could not be for small crafts only but for all ships. Fighters in Aurora are not the difference between a jet fighter and a naval ship, they are all the same. Steve have been quite thorough during the development of C# to not build exceptions to different rules bit consistent general rules and mechanics.

Not saying it is a bad idea... I would like for ships to have possibility for more modular components as that is realistic.

I also would like to have a system of a bit more restriction when building ships to as to some degree we have a bit too much freedom sometimes which sometimes actually limit our actual choices as there are too many bad ones. I would like some hull integrity value to be applied and different components will require different hull integrity or that components will require more or less space consideration in regards to internal or external positioning. Some components would compete more for the same space others will not etc... this way a "figter" would have more external space than internal than for example a 10kt Destroyer would, for the same reason how armour work... Armour would take both its space from external and from internal, but in actuality that usually mean less space available from external components in relation to its size.

Anyway... more modular components would be nice. Values for hull integrity and weight to satisfy it (based on technology) and a difference of internal and external space for components would make ship design even more interesting in my opinion. More complex... yes... but I think we could handle it.

A simple 'figure of merit' that would vary with ship size would be a surface/volume ratio. If one assumes ships to be spherical (or even ellipsoidal), that ration would be easy to calculate for a given tonnage and would vary pretty smoothly with ship size.

[Jorgen_CAB]

Was thinking a bit more about distribution of separate external and internal hull space. With extarnal I don't mean things just mounted on the outside of the ship as they are measured in volume and not weight.

The external hull would be like the egg shell, like armour would be part of the external hull of a ship.

Now.. this would put a bit more realistic restriction on ship design. There would be a difference on how much hull space different sized hull has... there might also be different configuration of ships available that could distribute the hull differently but receive some positive or negative effect, such as slightly better or lower speed, more or less hull integrity etc..

Anyway... we could finally get a meaningfull differenc beteen say box launched or full size missile launchers. A full size missile launcher would likely be something like 15% external and 85% internal hull while a box launcher are 97% external hull and 3% internal hull space. This would severely limit the amount of box launcher you can mount on certain ships in a realistic way. You could have a sleek hull form that give additional speed and external hull-space perfect for a missile fighter that already have allot of external versus internal hull-space to begin with.

It would usually be so that the larger the ship the more internal hull-space you get... this means you can't build a huge ship only blistering in guns as allot of the hull-space for guns are external, you need to find a good use for the internal hull-space. You could make a sleeker larger ship to with more external hull-space, but with lower hull integrity and more susceptible to chock perhaps and so on. Spinal weapons would of course also have mostly internal hull space in relation to other weapons. Turreted weapons also would require more external space than standard weapons etc..

Anyway... I think such a model could be worked into the game without huge issues and still keep it free in ship design, I thin ship design would actually find more actually useful hulls.

Also... a ships could not change form as it upgrades, you are stuck with a ships hull form throughout its lifetime.

Different components could also have different configuration and abilities depending on if you want it to require more or less external or internal hull-space. For engines then the larger the engine is the more it proportionally fit into internal versus external hull. This means large ships really wants large engines while really small ships can have trouble fitting too big engines without compromising external hull-space... perhaps not an issue for a survey ships, but certainly for a military ship.

When components are hit then external hull components should have a much higher chance to get hit first... this would make armoured turrets more interesting to have for example.

[Jorgen_CAB]

A simple 'figure of merit' that would vary with ship size would be a surface/volume ratio. If one assumes ships to be spherical (or even ellipsoidal), that ration would be easy to calculate for a given tonnage and would vary pretty smoothly with ship size.

A actually assume all ships tonnage is volume, so there is no surface mounted stuff per see, it all is included in the external part in this instance. Everything is usually beneath the armour anyway But it should be based on the surface area to some extent... I agree... and then somehow in relation to the size of the ship as well. I think it would make sense that the larger the hull then even more internal most hull-space become, even if the area is less on larger ships.

[Borealis4x]

I think Power Plants should either be expanded in their use or just be taken out and added on to the HS of beam weapons.

I get that they are there to make beam weapons a little less HS efficient when compared to missiles that need (usually multiple) launchers, a big magazine + a FC and AS, but I don't think they justify being their own customizable part ATM.

If they also powered shields or if having a surplus of power somehow increase the performance of beam weapons then that would justify their inclusion.

[nuclearslurpee]

I think Power Plants should either be expanded in their use or just be taken out and added on to the HS of beam weapons.

I get that they are there to make beam weapons a little less HS efficient when compared to missiles that need (usually multiple) launchers, a big magazine + a FC and AS, but I don't think they justify being their own customizable part ATM.

If they also powered shields or if having a surplus of power somehow increase the performance of beam weapons then that would justify their inclusion.

I support this. Just make reactors another integral component of a beam weapon and leave it at that, as they are easily the most boring component presenting very little in the way of interesting decisions. Presently the only real reason they exist separately is so that building bigger reactors can be more tonnage-efficient, which I would be fine living without and just tacking a few more HS onto my lasers.

[Erik L]

I think Power Plants should either be expanded in their use or just be taken out and added on to the HS of beam weapons.

I get that they are there to make beam weapons a little less HS efficient when compared to missiles that need (usually multiple) launchers, a big magazine + a FC and AS, but I don't think they justify being their own customizable part ATM.

If they also powered shields or if having a surplus of power somehow increase the performance of beam weapons then that would justify their inclusion.

I support this. Just make reactors another integral component of a beam weapon and leave it at that, as they are easily the most boring component presenting very little in the way of interesting decisions. Presently the only real reason they exist separately is so that building bigger reactors can be more tonnage-efficient, which I would be fine living without and just tacking a few more HS onto my lasers.

What about when your ship (or the bad guy) takes internals and the power plant goes? Unless he has gauss or missiles, he's mission killed.

[serger]

Decline arbitrary tonnage margins between fighters, FACs (w/o bridge) and ships (with bridge), with these changes to ship mechanics:

1. Bridge component reveals an ability to add other command components and makes Crew Quarters 3 times more effective (that are 3 watches, and without command components you cannot relieve watch for commanding personnel, because your Crew Quarters are the only action stations available for them).
2. Add a property "max spacecraft size able to take off" for any planet, dependent on it's mass or gravity. Colony and spacecraft design windows to show these properties accordingly.
3. Fighter Factories becoming Shipbuilding Factories, able to produce space components and build unarmored (yet-to-be-assembled by shuttles) stations and any spacecraft, that can take off this planet.
4. Construction Factories becoming unable to produce spacecraft components and unarmored stations, they are to build surface objects only.

[Black]

Would it be possible to get checkbox for ground units to not show on the list of units when loading ground troops to transports? I have garrison troops on my planet that I have no intention to move and I have to scroll through them to find my assault units.