C# Suggestions

[nuclearslurpee]

If we must have robotic crews, maybe just a new checkbox for that in the class design window is sufficient - check the box, and there is no change other than the crew is robots instead of humans/aliens. Crew quarters, etc. remain identical (call them something else, or just RP the change). The downside would be that robotic crews receive no crew/fleet training or commander benefits, thus being starkly inferior to even level 1 trained crews but better out of the box than conscript crews, although even those can train up fairly easily.

This way robotic crews are generally a weak option, but can be useful in a pinch if you need to build a lot of ships quickly and don't have enough crew to fill them (an ideal role for drone fighters). I think the big danger of robotic crews is that if they are "too viable" they remove one of the resource-management aspects of the game (crew management), but this should render them relatively innocuous as they are only better than even conscripted crews on very short notice.

[QuakeIV]

I don't really agree with those tradeoffs, usually mass automation is not an option you exercise at the last second in a pinch, like 'oh dang im running low on trained crew people i guess ill just quickly engineer automatons that can perform every function a human can as a stopgap measure'.  Its frankly usually the opposite of that where its much easier and quicker to find some way to do a job with a human, and then later as the job gets more developed machines start to take over, which is usually much more work.

[nuclearslurpee]

I don't really agree with those tradeoffs, usually mass automation is not an option you exercise at the last second in a pinch, like 'oh dang im running low on trained crew people i guess ill just quickly engineer automatons that can perform every function a human can as a stopgap measure'.  Its frankly usually the opposite of that where its much easier and quicker to find some way to do a job with a human, and then later as the job gets more developed machines start to take over, which is usually much more work.

I think that is kind of the problem, though, if automated crew is able to effectively replace human crews then that would remove the gameplay of managing crew (academy training level, crew and fleet training, etc.) not to mention probably ship commanders. Steve generally doesn't seem to be big on adding new mechanics that trivialize other mechanics, particularly when we can just use our imaginations instead.

I might also suggest that while what you say is true for mass industrial automation, it may not be true for ship crews depending on how one chooses to roleplay, as a lot of human intuition, initiative, and decision-making comes into play which robotic crews wouldn't have. A Star Wars-themed campaign for example might place droids and humans/aliens on a more even footing.

[QuakeIV]

I suggest none of those things, I am saying those tradeoffs don't really make sense.  In addition, it being one checkmark away from regular human crew and generally being slightly worse would add a small amount of fluff only and in effect be identical to conscripts.  Conscripts in that case making a lot more sense for the intended role of emergency replacement crew anyways.

In my opinion things in games should make logical sense and be generally somewhat reflective of real problem solving, not be some weird contrived thing that exists purely to achieve some game mechanics related goal, with everything else about it being loose fluff to ignore.

[Density]

My opinion is that a robot crew is still a crew. Right now, you can RP that your ships are run by robots: academy training = construction, programming, and testing; crew quarters = repair bays and recharge stations. Even training and grade isn't a stretch if you assume some amount of AI and/or fuzzy logic algorythms.

But the suggestion that sparked this conversation wasn't asking for robot crew, it was asking for drones.

If I had a choice on how to implement that, I'd add a checkbox or dropdown on the project screen to make the component design have 0 crew, with the trade-off being higher wealth and mineral costs and/or higher displacement. Then there'd be a wider choice of options in designs (that is you could put some autonomous components on a crewed ship instead of an all or nothing approach that would happen if this were handled at the class design step), and it wouldn't create a "fighter-only" special case.

[Kiero]

I also would like to see an option to set up a colony for a species that you've researched. So that you can unload a population from captured colony transport.
To create a prison colony... Yes I'm playing an evil empire.

[serger]

It is now rather boring to simulate or pretend that a space itself is rather dangerous place - that space ships and stations usually have significant chances to face a disaster like navigational crash or meteor strike, or critical inner system failure even with ideal crew and maintenance. In addition, it makes multirole large ship designs rather nonsensical aside of pure RP: it's significantly more efficient to have several specialized ships, compared to one multirole, just because of the ability to combine specialized ships depending on the situation.

So, my suggestion is to implement unremovable probability of critical (non-reparable-instantly) failure accident for both commercial and military components. They have to be rare (to not be more bothersome than their absence), though inevitable and invigorating.

It will be inevitably more dangerous for smaller and cheaper ships and stations, because of lesser duplication, so it will be more sense for players in larger designs, and so less drawing in micromanagement maelstrom late game.

Of course, it have rather be switchable in game options.

[serger]

UPD to the previous:

To take away most boring micro load, this feature have to affect only those ships that are not parked at mainteinance location or inside hangar.

[TMaekler]

UPD to the previous:

To take away most boring micro load, this feature have to affect only those ships that are not parked at mainteinance location or inside hangar.

There is a general game option to play without maintenance... or am I missing something?

[serger]

There is a general game option to play without maintenance... or am I missing something?

I think it will be better if a player will have an option to turn maintenance off and cricical failures (i.e. my suggestion) on - some players use maint. modules and installations, just do not bother with supply tenders.

[TMaekler]

There is a general game option to play without maintenance... or am I missing something?

I think it will be better if a player will have an option to turn maintenance off and cricical failures (i.e. my suggestion) on - some players use maint. modules and installations, just do not bother with supply tenders.

How do you want to manage the amount of failures? I guess they "just happen" depending of a low random number, independent of any maintenance value?!?

[serger]

How do you want to manage the amount of failures? I guess they "just happen" depending of a low random number, independent of any maintenance value?!?

There might be some dependance on maintenance value (and/or on tech levels or time from the beginning of extraterrestial ops - RP that it's your race is gaining exp in building more fail-safe components), but it's not mandatory.

And I'm not sure if I understand what do you mean on "to manage". smeg happens. It must only be rarely enough that most of player's ships and stations will never suffer from critical failures (so it will not be boring to deal with those failures all the time). In those cases they suffer - you'll maybe need tugs or carrier-docks, or just abandon their mission and return to base under its own power, or repair damage if this ship/station can do it.

[nuclearslurpee]

I dislike this idea. Randomly getting screwed by unavoidable RNG with no counterplay whatsoever is not fun gameplay - it may be realistic in some sense but that is not sufficient grounds for including a mechanic. The result of the mechanic is nothing fun at all - you lose a ship at what is likely an inconvenient time, and have to find a spare tug or tanker or whatever to conduct a frankly boring recovery operation. Random breakdowns are not really good storytelling either, not to say nothing can be done with it but IMO a better story for the player comes when, e.g., a ship is limping back to base having expended all its MSP to keep afloat, with the tension of knowing that one bad turn of luck could lead to an irrepairable engine failure - or worse an explosion. With just a random chance for this to happen all the time the tension is permanent which removes all excitement and just makes it more stressful.

Frankly I don't think large, multirole ships need help. Smaller specialized ships may give better performance, but they are also easier to target and destroy so that an enemy can eliminate that capability from your fleet. With a large ship the entire ship must be destroyed to remove its capabilities which is a harder task. Combined with RP reasons I think this is a sufficient balance to justify ships of both kinds, though even then I do still think a large ship should have a primary role to be most effective - a supercarrier for example should be first optimized for fighter operations, but can also have command facilities including long-range sensors and hefty point defenses.

[serger]

Randomly getting screwed by unavoidable RNG with no counterplay

The counterplay, obviously, if to have spare tugs/docks, tankers and bases. That's more deepness in the sky.

Random breakdowns are not really good storytelling either

Frankly I'm very surprised that smb thinks like this, because for me it's surprizes that makes game more like a story.
Because now I know that nearly every case my ship was caught by critical failure - it was my failure, my stupidity or carelessness, and just I cannot forget about it, and it's therefore not a story at all.

Frankly I don't think large, multirole ships need help. Smaller specialized ships may give better performance, but they are also easier to target

I think it's obviously the opposite - they are harder to target, especially with missiles. But, yes, they are also easier to kill when hit.
For combat ships it's now nearly balanced (considering also a build time), but for auxiliries and commerce ships it is not very much so.

[nuclearslurpee]

The counterplay, obviously, if to have spare tugs/docks, tankers and bases. That's more deepness in the sky.

If the "counterplay" is "more micromanagement", I cannot say I am in favor of it. Presently we do need all of these things, in some degree or another, for good mechanical reasons that make sense. Saying "okay, but now you need more because of RNG" does not make sense, at least from the perspective of good gameplay.

Frankly I'm very surprised that smb thinks like this, because for me it's surprizes that makes game more like a story.
Because now I know that nearly every case my ship was caught by critical failure - it was my failure, my stupidity or carelessness, and just I cannot forget about it, and it's therefore not a story at all.

I don't understand this. If my ship runs out of MSP or suffers a critical failure due to something I did - poor design, pushing it beyond its operating limits, and so on - then it is my failure, and knowing this is a possibility makes the decisions that lead to those cases interesting. There is a tangible story which has led to this, or which could have led to this. It's not "my failure" if my engine blows up due to a random dice roll. While I can make up a narrative on the spot about a surprise meteor shower or something, it's not interesting to me as a story - something randomly happened, and I have to make up a post-fact reason for it. A good narrative IMO has a meaningful cause and effect which feeds back to the gameplay.

I would liken to something Steve said about why he doesn't just "simulate" the NPRs to prevent increment slowdowns. There is a difference in the game narrative between jumping into a new system, seeing a wreck, and thinking "oh, the game has generated a random wreck for me to loot" versus seeing a wreck and knowing that some mysterious battle has gone on here. The former requires the player to make something up to cover the game mechanics, the latter places the player into the story being told by the game which is more immersive and emergent.

Frankly I don't think large, multirole ships need help. Smaller specialized ships may give better performance, but they are also easier to target

I think it's obviously the opposite - they are harder to target, especially with missiles.

I misspoke slightly, I mean that small specialized ships are easier to single out and destroy to eliminate a key capability.

Of course smaller ships are harder to target on sensors, but I think usually when we talk about such ships we are talking about sizes >100 HS at which point sensor resolutions usually tend to not matter very much, as ~100 is a pretty typical largest resolution, so even then the difference is not great. For ships below 100 HS I think the efficiency losses from such small size become significant enough that the discussion is quite different.

I do agree that things are generally balanced as it is. I'm not sure that auxiliary and commercial ships are very relevant to that discussion though, the design of such ships should always follow the needs of the fleet, frankly a gigantic multi-role auxiliary ship seems to me absurd unless you need such a thing to support an even bigger capital ship, and I don't think new mechanics are needed to make such a thing viable. The current paradigm makes much sense IMO.