C# Suggestions

[Migi]

Is it possible to add automatic naming for space stations, habitats, mining bases and so on? Right now every station, which is constructed by construction factory is named class name + number. This is quite unfitting for a mighty terraforming base for instance.

You should be able to do this by assigning that class a name theme in the Class Design window, under the Miscellaneous tab.

[nuclearslurpee]

Is it possible to add automatic naming for space stations, habitats, mining bases and so on? Right now every station, which is constructed by construction factory is named class name + number. This is quite unfitting for a mighty terraforming base for instance.

You should be able to do this by assigning that class a name theme in the Class Design window, under the Miscellaneous tab.

Right now this only works for ships built out of shipyards. If you build fighters or stations with planetary industry, they are not named according to the selected naming scheme.

[Migi]

Is it possible to add automatic naming for space stations, habitats, mining bases and so on? Right now every station, which is constructed by construction factory is named class name + number. This is quite unfitting for a mighty terraforming base for instance.

You should be able to do this by assigning that class a name theme in the Class Design window, under the Miscellaneous tab.

Right now this only works for ships built out of shipyards. If you build fighters or stations with planetary industry, they are not named according to the selected naming scheme.

Then it isn't a suggestion, it needs to be reported as a bug.

[Migi]

Suggestion/Tweak:
When a ground survey reveals a new source of minerals, currently the message doesn't tell you the accessibility, I would like it if it did.
When a ground survey increases the number of minerals available, I would like it if it specifically told you that the accessibility was unchanged and what the accessibility currently is.

[TMaekler]

Factory Ratio:

How about a change in Factory Production? As we have it now, there is a "fixed" number of factories doing "general production", other doing "fighter production" and the rest is doing "ammunition production". All have fixed numbers of workers who don't do anything when you don't need new fighters or produce ammunition. So how about reducing the types of factories to one and having a three-split ratio as to how the factories are configured? In times of peace, you lower the % of fighter and ammunition production and in times of war, you need to increase it. This refit should of course cost some minerals, but this way one could manage industry more efficiently.

[xenoscepter]

Factory Ratio:

How about a change in Factory Production? As we have it now, there is a "fixed" number of factories doing "general production", other doing "fighter production" and the rest is doing "ammunition production". All have fixed numbers of workers who don't do anything when you don't need new fighters or produce ammunition. So how about reducing the types of factories to one and having a three-split ratio as to how the factories are configured? In times of peace, you lower the % of fighter and ammunition production and in times of war, you need to increase it. This refit should of course cost some minerals, but this way one could manage industry more efficiently.

 --- Now this? This I like. Maybe keep the existing ones as "specialized" industry that can only be used for one type.

[alex_brunius]

Factory Ratio:

How about a change in Factory Production? As we have it now, there is a "fixed" number of factories doing "general production", other doing "fighter production" and the rest is doing "ammunition production". All have fixed numbers of workers who don't do anything when you don't need new fighters or produce ammunition. So how about reducing the types of factories to one and having a three-split ratio as to how the factories are configured? In times of peace, you lower the % of fighter and ammunition production and in times of war, you need to increase it. This refit should of course cost some minerals, but this way one could manage industry more efficiently.

Reusing somewhat existing mechanics I can see two ways to do this.

1.) Adding conversion industry tasks similar to with conventional industry between the 3 ( for maybe somewhere around 5-20 cost per factory vs 120 for a new ).
2.) A functionality similar to the disable industry functionality where you can toggle between 3 states instead of just on/off where the 3:ed state is "peacetime" having the ammo/fighter factories work as maybe something like 80% normal TN factories and 20% ammo/fighter factories ( with something like 90-180 days ramp up or conversion time when they produce only 20% ammo/fighters while the TN factories are undergoing conversion ).

[Blogaugis]

I think the planetary industry needs a rework - I think factories should be more universal, than have 3... 4 separate installations (Construction factories, fighter factories, ammunition factories and ground force training facilities). Oh, and shipyards too (we have 3 different of these as well! Military shipyard, Civilian Shipyard and repair yard!  )... Though, I suppose shipyards can stay.
The factories are a problem. Or rather, the so numerous types of them, and not really a proper way to cenvert them...
Oh and... I'd like conventional industry to be buildable too - though, perhaps this can be circumvented by Data Base editing?

[ArcWolf]

Oh and... I'd like conventional industry to be buildable too - though, perhaps this can be circumvented by Data Base editing?

yes, very easy to do, but you have to give them a cost because they have no material requirements. I did 40/40/40 Deranium/neutronium/Corundium to be "fair".

[alex_brunius]

1.) Adding conversion industry tasks similar to with conventional industry between the 3 ( for maybe somewhere around 5-20 cost per factory vs 120 for a new ).

Well this one was surprisingly easy to add through DB edit and appears to work fine when advancing time too...


( DIM_PlanetaryInstallation and add a row for each conversion )

[nuclearslurpee]

1.) Adding conversion industry tasks similar to with conventional industry between the 3 ( for maybe somewhere around 5-20 cost per factory vs 120 for a new ).

Well this one was surprisingly easy to add through DB edit and appears to work fine when advancing time too...


( DIM_PlanetaryInstallation and add a row for each conversion )

If it is this trivial to implement I see no reason why this shouldn't be added as long as the costs are appropriately balanced so that there is not too much ability to cheese mineral costs by building + converting.

It may make sense to change the fighter and ordnance factory costs to be 60 duranium + 60 vendarite/tritanium (from 120 of the latter), and the conversion cost between the types can be 30 neutronium/vendarite/tritanium + 30 BP, that seems reasonable.

[xenoscepter]

 --- Can we add a firing delay for FCS, preferably for both Beam & Missile FCS, but definitely for Missile ones. As well as a stagger option for turrets that's does the same thing.

 ---The logic being that if I want a steady stream of DPS with say a 10-15 second reload... I can mount three and stagger them. Thus I could also knowingly underpower a ship since weapons only begin charging when they fire.

 - Likewise, can we have turrets for missiles? Give them a crew reduction and maybe a reload increase, but at the expense of having to fire all of them at once so they waste some ammo compared to individual tubes. This would make sensor missiles a trade-off for use with these, since they would re-target after impact if they saw anything.

[Blogaugis]

yes, very easy to do, but you have to give them a cost because they have no material requirements. I did 40/40/40 Deranium/neutronium/Corundium to be "fair".

Facepalms and sighs...
Dude, it's CONVENTIONAL INDUSTRY, meaning - made when TNs were not known!
Why should You add a mineral cost to that!?

Although, let me guess - bugs, right? Or the A.I. going nuts with it and building them in infinite numbers?

[alex_brunius]

Facepalms and sighs...
Dude, it's CONVENTIONAL INDUSTRY, meaning - made when TNs were not known!
Why should You add a mineral cost to that!?

Although, let me guess - bugs, right? Or the A.I. going nuts with it and building them in infinite numbers?

No... Because if there was no resource cost attached to it you would be able to pay just 20 resources to convert them to full TN Construction Factories worth 120 resources.

[Blogaugis]

No... Because if there was no resource cost attached to it you would be able to pay just 20 resources to convert them to full TN Construction Factories worth 120 resources.

Ah!
So in order to make it fair, you could make it, that conversion basically costs the same as a full construction factory.

My goal wasn't really fairness though, my goal was to find a way to make some asteroids and planetoids useful for more than just slow accumulation of population and (low gravity) infrastructure...

As for NPRs building them... they won't?