C# Suggestions

[skoormit]

On the Commanders window, could we have a toggle for showing only unassigned commanders (in the filtered list, bottom right; not the full list in the left pane)?

[Stormtrooper]

Currently if there are two ground formations on the same hierarchy level next to each other and both have hq units inside, if you set up one of the formations to support and try to support the other, you won't be able to do it unless the hq inside formation you try to support is the same size or smaller than the hq inside formation you want to provide support with. If the "supported" formation has higher hq size instead, then your drag will end up in making the other formation subordinate of the supposedly supported one instead of setting support correctly.

I'd be grateful for a toggle as to what drag does (ideally a different way than dragging, but at the very least that), so I can consciously decide whether I want to provide support or attach as a subordinate.

[xenoscepter]

Currently if there are two ground formations on the same hierarchy level next to each other and both have hq units inside, if you set up one of the formations to support and try to support the other, you won't be able to do it unless the hq inside formation you try to support is the same size or smaller than the hq inside formation you want to provide support with. If the "supported" formation has higher hq size instead, then your drag will end up in making the other formation subordinate of the supposedly supported one instead of setting support correctly.

I'd be grateful for a toggle as to what drag does (ideally a different way than dragging, but at the very least that), so I can consciously decide whether I want to provide support or attach as a subordinate.

 --- I would honestly kill just to have a button that lets me assign support regardless of HQ sizes. I often have smaller, vehicular attack formations that I want to support with larger bombardment formations, but it doesn't work unless I heavily overbuild the HQ. For reference I have large defensive formations to defend them.

 --- Likewise the option to assign a subordinate formation to direct support it's parent formation would be much appreciated. I often find myself just wanting to put another 1,000 tons or so in my formation's HQ to assign a support bombardment unit, so that they get the extra boni from it.

[Blogaugis]

I find terraforming strategies to be a bit one-sided:

Terraforming facility is generally considered a worse alternative to the terraforming module mounted on a ship (or a station).
The advantages of terraforming on a ship:
You can get bonus from ship commander,
You don't require population to function.
While the only obvious advantage I can see is:
Facility can be built with a construction factory. Thus, saving you a shipyard.

I suggest to improve ground-based facility to either:
Not require population to function, OR
Work better than a single terraforming module on a ship (like, 5 times more powerful).

[nuclearslurpee]

I find terraforming strategies to be a bit one-sided:

Terraforming facility is generally considered a worse alternative to the terraforming module mounted on a ship (or a station).
The advantages of terraforming on a ship:
You can get bonus from ship commander,
You don't require population to function.
While the only obvious advantage I can see is:
Facility can be built with a construction factory. Thus, saving you a shipyard.

I suggest to improve ground-based facility to either:
Not require population to function, OR
Work better than a single terraforming module on a ship (like, 5 times more powerful).

Compounding the problem is the cost, a terraforming installation costs 600 BP in a factory while the terraforming module costs somewhat less, I want to say 480? BP but don't have Aurora in front of me right now.

This is analogous to orbital mining modules vs automines, however in this case OMMs have an obvious limitation in that they can only mine from very small bodies. Thus the balance between OMMs, automines (2x cost, work everywhere) and manned mines (require population) is reasonable and all options have their use. Terraforming modules have no such limitations aside from the initial research investment into the modules themselves as well as tractor beams for the tugs (although you can put engines on a terraforming ship this forces you to use a shipyard to build it).

That being said I am not sure what a good solution would be. Currently shipborne terraforming modules feel like they are in a good place, so I think it is preferable to buff the ground-based installations instead of nerfing the orbital modules. However any buff to the ground installations is difficult to make as we do not want to make early-game terraforming too easy. If nothing else I think bringing the cost of the ground facilities down to be the same as that of the orbital modules is reasonable, as this allows a strategy of using terraformers to employ the first wave of colonists at a new colony to be competitive with the orbital stations economically.

[Blogaugis]

Compounding the problem is the cost, a terraforming installation costs 600 BP in a factory while the terraforming module costs somewhat less, I want to say 480? BP but don't have Aurora in front of me right now.

This is analogous to orbital mining modules vs automines, however in this case OMMs have an obvious limitation in that they can only mine from very small bodies. Thus the balance between OMMs, automines (2x cost, work everywhere) and manned mines (require population) is reasonable and all options have their use. Terraforming modules have no such limitations aside from the initial research investment into the modules themselves as well as tractor beams for the tugs (although you can put engines on a terraforming ship this forces you to use a shipyard to build it).

That being said I am not sure what a good solution would be. Currently shipborne terraforming modules feel like they are in a good place, so I think it is preferable to buff the ground-based installations instead of nerfing the orbital modules. However any buff to the ground installations is difficult to make as we do not want to make early-game terraforming too easy. If nothing else I think bringing the cost of the ground facilities down to be the same as that of the orbital modules is reasonable, as this allows a strategy of using terraformers to employ the first wave of colonists at a new colony to be competitive with the orbital stations economically.

Terraforming module:
Cost 500   Size 25,000 tons   Crew 100   HTK 10
Base Chance to hit 100%
Materials Required: Duranium  250    Boronide  250

Terraforming installation:
Wealth: 600
Duranium: 300
Boronide: 300
+ population to function... Do they pay taxes, at least?


I say, that:
Currently, the shipborne terraforming modules feel like in a good place they are too good!!!, to the point of making terraforming installations too much of a hassle.
I mean, sure, you can use a freighter that is sooo big, to transport other installations as well, making it a versatile solution (so that you'd need these freighters whether you use terraforming installations or not).
But, still... You'd need infrastructure to transport with it! And even then it sometimes is not enough (some colony costs are so huge, that terraforming installation simply cannot work, no matter how much infrastructure you toss at it - Venus, for example). This population requirement can be bypassed with an orbital habitat... But it will still require a tug, or a separate dockyard to build.
So...
Does anybody even use terraforming installation?
Because I'd rather use a module than an installation. Pretty much, every time.
I guess I can see 1 place where you want taxes even before the planet is terraformed, but... Do they pay taxes?

[Garfunkel]

Different tools for different situations, my friend.

I use TF facilities for Mars and other CC2 planets, as the need for infra is small. TF stations, meanwhile, are used on CC4+ planets. Because they are built by different facilities (CF vs SY), it can be beneficial to utilize both. But especially in early game, when SY space is at premium, it's worth it to have TF facilities even if you eventually phase them out and only use TF stations/ships.

[ISN]

Here's a random thought: what if ground-based terraformers could add water directly to the hydrosphere, rather than going by way of atmospheric water vapor? The idea being that, since they're on the ground, they can just dump out liquid water or whatever rather than injecting water vapor into the atmosphere. (Not sure where all that water is coming from, but that's a separate issue.) I find that waiting for water vapor to condense out of the atmosphere can in certain cases (depending on planet size, temperature, etc.) add somewhat to the time it takes to terraform a planet, so letting ground-based terraformers shortcut that could make for an interesting tradeoff between them and orbital terraformers -- although orbital terraformers would probably still be better in most cases without further rebalancing, since water condensation typically doesn't take that much longer. The biggest issue I see with this is that it would require reworking the terraforming user interface, since currently it only allows for adding atmospheric gasses. But there have been various discussions about improving the terraforming UI anyway, so maybe that's not the worst thing.

[nuclearslurpee]

Currently, the shipborne terraforming modules feel like in a good place they are too good!!!, to the point of making terraforming installations too much of a hassle.

To clarify my point: I feel like orbital terraforming modules, by themselves, feel like a good balance. The rate at which they can be built, deployed, and terraform a planet feels reasonable at least in the early to mid game...many players claim terraforming is too fast in the late game but that's a different discussion.

The planetary installations feel decidedly weak by comparison because their cost is greater and their use is more restrictive, but I do not think the answer is to nerf the orbital modules, rather the ground-based facilities need some improvements. Bringing their cost into line with the orbital modules is at least a good first step, or maybe a bit less. Even equal cost at 500 BP I think is fine, but since orbital modules are so much more flexible a slight discount at, say, 480 BP might make more sense.

I mean, sure, you can use a freighter that is sooo big, to transport other installations as well, making it a versatile solution (so that you'd need these freighters whether you use terraforming installations or not).
But, still... You'd need infrastructure to transport with it! And even then it sometimes is not enough (some colony costs are so huge, that terraforming installation simply cannot work, no matter how much infrastructure you toss at it - Venus, for example). This population requirement can be bypassed with an orbital habitat... But it will still require a tug, or a separate dockyard to build.

I can't speak for other players, but I will usually use infrastructure to establish new colonies particularly in frontier systems and place a population of ~10m at a CC2.0 world in a system I want to eventually expand and terraform in. In this case it can make some sense to ship out the ground-based terraforming facilities to give that population something to do, so the population requirement is not always a hindrance especially if the planet itself has relatively poor mining prospects.

So...
Does anybody even use terraforming installation?
Because I'd rather use a module than an installation. Pretty much, every time.

If I'm playing with a low-pop start and don't have the RPs to research terraforming modules with instant research I'll usually build some installations to get started on terraforming Luna/Mars since I'll colonize those bodies without having any real jobs for the populations to be doing. Once orbital modules and tractor beams are available though there is not much point, though I will still use the facilities I already built as they don't cost any more to operate...

I guess I can see 1 place where you want taxes even before the planet is terraformed, but... Do they pay taxes?

Yes. All employed workers pay taxes, and terraforming installations are no exception.

Different tools for different situations, my friend.

I use TF facilities for Mars and other CC2 planets, as the need for infra is small. TF stations, meanwhile, are used on CC4+ planets. Because they are built by different facilities (CF vs SY), it can be beneficial to utilize both. But especially in early game, when SY space is at premium, it's worth it to have TF facilities even if you eventually phase them out and only use TF stations/ships.

I think the issue is that after the early game, once you have terraforming modules (5000 RP) and tractor beams (5000 RP), plus a few tugs built...there is no economical reason to build the ground-based facilities. The orbital modules are cheaper (500 BP vs 600 BP for the ground-based facilities) and logistically not any more complicated (freighters vs tugs is a wash even neglecting the need for colonists to be shipped around as I assume this will happen anyways).

It's reasonable to say that the installations are intended to be the early-game option and the orbital modules for the rest of the game but personally I dislike having a mechanic or feature in the game which is completely useless after a certain point in time.

That said I think only a small adjustment to the build cost is needed, just enough to make ground facilities competitive instead of clearly overpriced and uneconomical.

[Blogaugis]

Different tools for different situations, my friend.

I use TF facilities for Mars and other CC2 planets, as the need for infra is small. TF stations, meanwhile, are used on CC4+ planets. Because they are built by different facilities (CF vs SY), it can be beneficial to utilize both. But especially in early game, when SY space is at premium, it's worth it to have TF facilities even if you eventually phase them out and only use TF stations/ships.

But you still phase them out... Meaning, they are viable only fairly early, or with specific limitations and role-play reasons...

To clarify my point: I feel like orbital terraforming modules, by themselves, feel like a good balance. The rate at which they can be built, deployed, and terraform a planet feels reasonable at least in the early to mid game...many players claim terraforming is too fast in the late game but that's a different discussion.

The planetary installations feel decidedly weak by comparison because their cost is greater and their use is more restrictive, but I do not think the answer is to nerf the orbital modules, rather the ground-based facilities need some improvements. Bringing their cost into line with the orbital modules is at least a good first step, or maybe a bit less. Even equal cost at 500 BP I think is fine, but since orbital modules are so much more flexible a slight discount at, say, 480 BP might make more sense.

Yeah, and that's what I also suggested, albeit even further:
Remove population requirement for terraforming installations (so that you can also use them on Venus), Or make them more effective than a ship module, like, 2 times more effective at the very least.

I can't speak for other players, but I will usually use infrastructure to establish new colonies particularly in frontier systems and place a population of ~10m at a CC2.0 world in a system I want to eventually expand and terraform in. In this case it can make some sense to ship out the ground-based terraforming facilities to give that population something to do, so the population requirement is not always a hindrance especially if the planet itself has relatively poor mining prospects.

Considering that in my game Luna and all those worlds near Jupiter (and Titan near Saturn) have no minerals, I suppose a facility may not be entirely without merit...

If I'm playing with a low-pop start and don't have the RPs to research terraforming modules with instant research I'll usually build some installations to get started on terraforming Luna/Mars since I'll colonize those bodies without having any real jobs for the populations to be doing. Once orbital modules and tractor beams are available though there is not much point, though I will still use the facilities I already built as they don't cost any more to operate...

I chose to not have any instant research points in my game, and yet still waited for a module... A terraforming station with 10 modules seems like a fairly quick solution.

Yes. All employed workers pay taxes, and terraforming installations are no exception.

Which means that an installation has 1 more advantage over a module...
So, a wealth sensitive civilization may choose to go with installation.
Though, I don't think it is enough.

I think the issue is that after the early game, once you have terraforming modules (5000 RP) and tractor beams (5000 RP), plus a few tugs built...there is no economical reason to build the ground-based facilities. The orbital modules are cheaper (500 BP vs 600 BP for the ground-based facilities) and logistically not any more complicated (freighters vs tugs is a wash even neglecting the need for colonists to be shipped around as I assume this will happen anyways).

It's reasonable to say that the installations are intended to be the early-game option and the orbital modules for the rest of the game but personally I dislike having a mechanic or feature in the game which is completely useless after a certain point in time.

That said I think only a small adjustment to the build cost is needed, just enough to make ground facilities competitive instead of clearly overpriced and uneconomical.

Well, at least we agree on the same problem, though we offer different solutions...
But, yes, I agree that the cost should be the same, if not less (at least, if the workers still remain on it, can they at least do things, that reduce the facility's cost..?)
Though, if we remove the workers, we also remove the advantage it has over a module...

[nuclearslurpee]

Well, at least we agree on the same problem, though we offer different solutions...
But, yes, I agree that the cost should be the same, if not less (at least, if the workers still remain on it, can they at least do things, that reduce the facility's cost..?)
Though, if we remove the workers, we also remove the advantage it has over a module...

I think we are taking different approaches to a solution.

Your proposals, though I may be misunderstanding, strike me as trying to make the ground facilities and orbital modules basically equal in all situations. For example removing the population requirements (and setting the BP costs equal) means that the only real difference between the two types is whether you use freighters or tugs to move them into place.

Whereas what I prefer is a setup where both types have different uses so one or the other is preferable, for example the orbital modules are more flexible but also slightly costlier, while the ground facilities are a bit cheaper (I suggested 480 BP but you could go even lower if necessary) but require population so they are better for some situations but not all. This leads to a strategy where you want to build mostly the orbital modules but also some ground facilities for the cases where they are a stronger option - which leads to a necessity to assess how many of each you should expect to need and try to build up accordingly.

[Blogaugis]

I think we are taking different approaches to a solution.

Your proposals, though I may be misunderstanding, strike me as trying to make the ground facilities and orbital modules basically equal in all situations. For example removing the population requirements (and setting the BP costs equal) means that the only real difference between the two types is whether you use freighters or tugs to move them into place.

Whereas what I prefer is a setup where both types have different uses so one or the other is preferable, for example the orbital modules are more flexible but also slightly costlier, while the ground facilities are a bit cheaper (I suggested 480 BP but you could go even lower if necessary) but require population so they are better for some situations but not all. This leads to a strategy where you want to build mostly the orbital modules but also some ground facilities for the cases where they are a stronger option - which leads to a necessity to assess how many of each you should expect to need and try to build up accordingly.

Yeah...
At least, the key problem - installations have very little point to be used currently. You will use modules after you research tractor beam and terraforming module.

We want to give installations something that makes them useful even in late game, like, making them work better than modules, or be the same as modules without requiring population - at least, make them even. Rather than a tug, you can use a cargo ship to terraform a planet.

We also need to solve a bit of a problem with some high colony cost planets - can you terraform Venus with only terraform facilities and infrastructure? Answer is no. If you use orbital habitats - yes.
If terraforming facilities did not require population - the answer becomes yes. This will solve a problem.

But, okay, perhaps we can leave that 'require population'...
What other advantages the installation could have over a module?
I suggest making it more powerful than a module, like, 2 times more powerful, or maybe 50% more powerful.
That way, even if it cannot be used to terraform Venus-like planets (without orbital habitats), it can still be useful even in late game, as it is more efficient than a module (unless you have a very skilled navy commander with insane terraform buffs...).

[skoormit]

I find terraforming strategies to be a bit one-sided:
...
I suggest to improve ground-based facility to either:
Not require population to function, OR
Work better than a single terraforming module on a ship (like, 5 times more powerful).

The differences between a TFI and a module are:

TFI requires 250k workers.
TFI costs 20% more (600 vs 500).
TFI requires 5 times the tonnage to transport (125kt of cargo holds vs 25kt of module size).
TFI gets planetary/sector governor bonuses, module gets ship commander and NAC bonuses.
TFI must be built by factories. Modules can be built in factories or in shipyard.
TFI generates tax income.

As it stands, I never build TFI.
The only relative advantage is the tax income, but the long-run economic bottleneck is always population, and I would get the same tax income by using those workers in other installations.

If you remove the population requirement from TFIs, then I might actually use them.
To be worthwhile, I'd have to have a governor with a significant TF bonus, a large and long-term TF project, freighter capacity surplus to anticipated requirements for quite a while (perhaps after having completed a large migration effort), and enough fuel production that I don't mind spending five times the fuel to transport them (compared to moving the equivalent modules instead).

Honestly, I think the answer is to make the installation/module dynamic equivalent to that for mines/automines.

Make TFIs cost 250 (half the cost of a module), require 50k workers, and require 25kt cargo space.
That way modules offer the same economic tradeoff for installations that automines offer for mines (twice the cost in exchange for not needing workers), instead of being a much, much better deal like they are now.

[Blogaugis]

New suggestion - in ground forces order of battle screen, change the color (to red or orange) if the formation attached to a hierarchy cannot receive officers bonuses (like, lacks HQ).

[Garfunkel]

Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you but it seems that you're trying to bring BALANCE to Aurora and that's not going to work

But you still phase them out

No, you skipped over the rest of my post. I wrote that even in the case that they are phased out, they were useful in early game. But they always remain useful and there is no need to phase them out. If your surveyors find a steady stream of planets to terraform, there will never be a situation where you want less terraforming ability.

Even if that's not the case and there's a mathematical most efficient way, it doesn't really matter. Because Aurora is all about options and possibilities - if TF facilities are only useful in early game and then might not be used by few/some/many players after that, doesn't mean that they are wasted. It's 100% fine if something isn't viable/efficient throughout the game - we already have this with weapons. There is no need to make any changes here.

The only relative advantage is the tax income, but the long-run economic bottleneck is always population

Only if you do 500M pop default starts. If you do a 7B pop United Earth start, you won't be bottlenecked by population.

If you remove the population requirement from TFIs, then I might actually use them.

But then how am I telling a story of maintaining a frontier colony that's desperately trying to terraform their planet?

To be worthwhile

I disagree because all you're proposing here is to increase the mathematical formula for achieving maximum effectiveness vs investment while removing options. I don't want Aurora to become yet another 4X game where there's only one true way to play. We already have Paradox and Matrix for that.