C# Suggestions

[nuclearslurpee]

On the mechanics side, I'm very much in favor of converting ground unit training into a system that works more like industrial production, but with minimum training times for specific units (similar to how the build queue works in Hearts of Iron). As it is now, using multiple GFTFs to train a large formation involves breaking down the formation template into individual sub-formations and fiddling with the construction costs until they are about equal, then training them separately and combining at the end. This is tedious and error-prone, and makes IMO only limited sense.

This has been a frequent request, and Steve has acknowledged the need but not yet developed a solution as far as we know.

I think a large part of the issue is that when Steve developed the ground forces system, he probably had in mind that battalions would be the base formation size (~2,500 to 5,000 tons) as in VB6 (you can see this in the rank themes as well). With this assumption, the ground forces training works without too much trouble as a 5,000-ton infantry battalion can be built in about 5 months at the base training speed tech level, and a similarly-sized armored battalion in 3-4 times that. Once you start developing the training techs these times go down and more expensive units (heavily armored or with added capabilities) can be trained in roughly a year to provide a natural progression of sorts.

The problem has been that the ratio of ground force leaders to number of formations with such small formations is not favorable, and so the equilibrium tends to settle closer to 15,000 to 25,000 tons regiments/brigades as the base size which take multiple years to train. Steve has noticed this, as NPRs tend to use ~15,000 tons as their base formation size, but a change for ground unit construction has not yet come. There is some hope that the doubling of naval and ground commander birth rates in 2.0 can help with this, maybe reducing the needed formation sizes to ~10,000 tons which is more manageable once you research a few levels of the training tech, but it's not going to be a real solution.

[Scandinavian]

On the mechanics side, I'm very much in favor of converting ground unit training into a system that works more like industrial production, but with minimum training times for specific units (similar to how the build queue works in Hearts of Iron). As it is now, using multiple GFTFs to train a large formation involves breaking down the formation template into individual sub-formations and fiddling with the construction costs until they are about equal, then training them separately and combining at the end. This is tedious and error-prone, and makes IMO only limited sense.

This has been a frequent request, and Steve has acknowledged the need but not yet developed a solution as far as we know.

I think a large part of the issue is that when Steve developed the ground forces system, he probably had in mind that battalions would be the base formation size (~2,500 to 5,000 tons) as in VB6 (you can see this in the rank themes as well). With this assumption, the ground forces training works without too much trouble as a 5,000-ton infantry battalion can be built in about 5 months at the base training speed tech level, and a similarly-sized armored battalion in 3-4 times that. Once you start developing the training techs these times go down and more expensive units (heavily armored or with added capabilities) can be trained in roughly a year to provide a natural progression of sorts.

The problem has been that the ratio of ground force leaders to number of formations with such small formations is not favorable, and so the equilibrium tends to settle closer to 15,000 to 25,000 tons regiments/brigades as the base size which take multiple years to train. Steve has noticed this, as NPRs tend to use ~15,000 tons as their base formation size, but a change for ground unit construction has not yet come. There is some hope that the doubling of naval and ground commander birth rates in 2.0 can help with this, maybe reducing the needed formation sizes to ~10,000 tons which is more manageable once you research a few levels of the training tech, but it's not going to be a real solution.

Personally, I don't so much mind having to spend a year standing up an infantry brigade. That seems a little long, but not outside the realm of reasonableness (in our own reality, infantry that is mobilized in less than that time tends to be pretty use-impaired anyway - this is why you can tell a lot about an army's state of readiness from the length of its tours of duty).

But the two years I have to wait for that twelve-gun STO battery I ordered seems a little out of whack with the pace at which my shipyards can crank out the same guns when I wrap them in an engineless papier-mache hull and slap a bridge on them.

[Droll]

But the two years I have to wait for that twelve-gun STO battery I ordered seems a little out of whack with the pace at which my shipyards can crank out the same guns when I wrap them in an engineless papier-mache hull and slap a bridge on them.

This is honestly the core of the issue for me. It seems so wildly inconsistent especially since your building the same guns at a much faster rate for spaceships.

[alex_brunius]

Allow instant moving a Ground Force Formation from one body to another via drag and drop if SM mode is active:
( Disable this check )

[Platys51]

Make sun selectable object in fleet movement window. Clicking colonize on it would made colony on all bodies in system with minerals, orbital mining option would plot route trough all bodies eligible for this and used "load all minerals" before leaving for next place.

Would work well with new deep space cargo transfers as you could have ships take contents of mining ship cargo hold mid mission.

Also, star could be used to issue general system wide commands that could be executed with one click.

[nakorkren]

Consider having shields and active sensors require power to operate, with the amount of power based on their strength. This would create several new gameplay dynamics relating to power management during combat. This would definitely require some serious thought to balancing, since it would make shields weaker (relative to armor) due to the need for additional hull space for power, but I think the various trade-offs to be considered during ship design and combat would be a lot of fun.

My apologies if this has been debated or considered previously, but I didn't see anything on the forum to this effect, other than the fact that shields used to consume fuel, which is different.

[Black]

I noticed that when Administrator reaches highere admin rating it is not shown in their history in Commanders window. Would it be possible to add this feature?

[nuclearslurpee]

Small RP suggestion, in two parts:

• For single-star systems, it would be nice if the star and body names would not include the "-A" in their designations. It's a small thing, but "Epsilon Eridani II" looks neater than "Epsilon Eridani-A II".
• The ability to name stars in a multiple-star system independently. The current behavior is a fine default, but sometimes it makes sense to name each star separately especially for races which start in a binary+ system.

[Black]

Small RP suggestion, in two parts:

• For single-star systems, it would be nice if the star and body names would not include the "-A" in their designations. It's a small thing, but "Epsilon Eridani II" looks neater than "Epsilon Eridani-A II".
• The ability to name stars in a multiple-star system independently. The current behavior is a fine default, but sometimes it makes sense to name each star separately especially for races which start in a binary+ system.

That would be nice, we could rename the stars in Alpha Centauri to Rigil Kentaurus and Toliman with this feature.

[Migi]

A spaceport is needed to build 'space stations' (the type with no armour).

To make this more flavourful, can the spaceport be renamed the space elevator?

[Garfunkel]

A spaceport is needed to build 'space stations' (the type with no armour).

To make this more flavourful, can the spaceport be renamed the space elevator?

Even better, make it so that once spaceport hits level 5, it becomes space elevator.

Or, alternatively, make space elevator a separate facility that acts as five levels of space sport.

[Black]

I don't think that spaceports stack anymore.

[TMaekler]

Thinking about "moveable jump point stabilisers", mostly for RP purposes. The idea is to construct stations that can transfer ships at jump points. Basically manual jump point stabilisers. Depending on their purposes, they can be equipped with RP modules like "Warp Point Communications Relay" (They basically allow ships to communicate with the empire directly through the relay, rather than having to jump to the other system, to deliver messages).

But also functional modules like:
a) Refuel Equipment
b) Maintenance Storage & Facilities
c) Recreation Facilities
etc.

I was wondering if we could get a new module that can act like the jump point stabilisation does, except it is build into a station. Such a ship could move to another jump point, but it would need to stay at a new jump point location for an amount x of days until it can provide the service of stabilising the jump point.

Additionally it would only allow allied ships to pass through, and, it could be destroyed. So new options for war and politics... .

[TheTalkingMeowth]

Thinking about "moveable jump point stabilisers", mostly for RP purposes. The idea is to construct stations that can transfer ships at jump points. Basically manual jump point stabilisers. Depending on their purposes, they can be equipped with RP modules like "Warp Point Communications Relay" (They basically allow ships to communicate with the empire directly through the relay, rather than having to jump to the other system, to deliver messages).

But also functional modules like:
a) Refuel Equipment
b) Maintenance Storage & Facilities
c) Recreation Facilities
etc.

I was wondering if we could get a new module that can act like the jump point stabilisation does, except it is build into a station. Such a ship could move to another jump point, but it would need to stay at a new jump point location for an amount x of days until it can provide the service of stabilising the jump point.

Additionally it would only allow allied ships to pass through, and, it could be destroyed. So new options for war and politics... .

Most of what you want here is achieved by putting a jump drive on a station and parking it at the jump point.

[nuclearslurpee]

Thinking about "moveable jump point stabilisers", mostly for RP purposes. The idea is to construct stations that can transfer ships at jump points. Basically manual jump point stabilisers. Depending on their purposes, they can be equipped with RP modules like "Warp Point Communications Relay" (They basically allow ships to communicate with the empire directly through the relay, rather than having to jump to the other system, to deliver messages).

But also functional modules like:
a) Refuel Equipment
b) Maintenance Storage & Facilities
c) Recreation Facilities
etc.

I was wondering if we could get a new module that can act like the jump point stabilisation does, except it is build into a station. Such a ship could move to another jump point, but it would need to stay at a new jump point location for an amount x of days until it can provide the service of stabilising the jump point.

Additionally it would only allow allied ships to pass through, and, it could be destroyed. So new options for war and politics... .

Most of what you want here is achieved by putting a jump drive on a station and parking it at the jump point.

I think the only thing that can't be achieved with this is allowing Civilian traffic through the jump point, since they require a stabilized JP to travel through.