C# Suggestions

[Steve Walmsley]

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

Added for v2.0

[Steve Walmsley]

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.

I've added part 1. The "-A" annoyed me too

Part 2 involves messing with the DB so I will do that at some point in the future. I am trying to finish v2.0, so I am only tackling a few minor changes for now.

[Steve Walmsley]

Could you make it so that "hide fleets in orbit" only hides fleets that have no orders?
That way ships which are doing a survey don't disappear while they are in orbit, but busy.

'Hide Fleets' only hides fleets with no ships, so they should have no orders anyway.

[Migi]

Could you make it so that "hide fleets in orbit" only hides fleets that have no orders?
That way ships which are doing a survey don't disappear while they are in orbit, but busy.

'Hide Fleets' only hides fleets with no ships, so they should have no orders anyway.

I think you misunderstood my post. I'm talking about the setting in the main window, display tab.

At the moment when "hide fleets in orbit" is active, you can see geosurvey ships when they move between bodies, but they disappear when they arrive and start work. This means you can have a system of busy ships but not see any of them, until you change the setting. This causes me to change the setting quite frequently.

I thought the easiest way of resolving this was adding an exception for fleets which have orders.
But having thought a little bit more, it would also affect loading/unloading ships as well, so maybe it would be better as an additional option rather than changing the existing setting.

[Steve Walmsley]

Could you make it so that "hide fleets in orbit" only hides fleets that have no orders?
That way ships which are doing a survey don't disappear while they are in orbit, but busy.

'Hide Fleets' only hides fleets with no ships, so they should have no orders anyway.

I think you misunderstood my post. I'm talking about the setting in the main window, display tab.

At the moment when "hide fleets in orbit" is active, you can see geosurvey ships when they move between bodies, but they disappear when they arrive and start work. This means you can have a system of busy ships but not see any of them, until you change the setting. This causes me to change the setting quite frequently.

I thought the easiest way of resolving this was adding an exception for fleets which have orders.
But having thought a little bit more, it would also affect loading/unloading ships as well, so maybe it would be better as an additional option rather than changing the existing setting.

You're correct. I thought that checkbox hid empty fleets but it really does hide everything in orbit. It probably makes sense to hide only inactive fleets, but I'll give it some thought first.

[Aloriel]

Back in VB6, we had the ability to give out titles to our commanders. I'd like to see a return of that for RP reasons! If my government simulation elects someone as Secretary-General of the UN, I should be able to mark that in game somehow

[nakorkren]

Please consider changing Formation Templates to be populated with Unit Series, rather than specific Units. That way new formations are always built with the latest and greatest Unit in the series. Right now, if you research a new Unit (e.g. because your armor tech increased) you can't start incorporating them into your Formations (by updating the Formation Template) until you are done building any Formations presently under construction.

[papent]

Please consider changing Formation Templates to be populated with Unit Series, rather than specific Units. That way new formations are always built with the latest and greatest Unit in the series. Right now, if you research a new Unit (e.g. because your armor tech increased) you can't start incorporating them into your Formations (by updating the Formation Template) until you are done building any Formations presently under construction.

why not both or better yet:

• Units
• Unit Series
• Smaller Formations

[Platys51]

With the talk of deep space populations and mobile repair yards, some work around pops will have to be done anyway, I would like to ask for little automation around future repair yards and mining ships.

Mainly for mobile repair yards to check for materials and if none are present, check for them in its own cargo hold before throwing out error, perhaps dumping required amount if resources do need to be on the colony and for mining ship, once the source is mined out, collecting stuff left behind if free cargo space is available.

Automating mining ships completely would be the best and would probably see many more ppl use them too, simply making new colony on closest viable object with minerals, moving there and collecting everything once fully mined out, deleting colony if it's left empty and moving on.

Would be especially nice thanks to new deep-space cargo transfer as mining ships could roam mineral-rich systems for decades without bothering players with undue amounts of micro for little gain.

[ropedog]

A special warning message when a story character dies.

Since gameplay is so much quicker in C# Aurora and since commander health is not differenciated from commander death, I quite often happen to miss when my planetary governors die and leave important positions vacant - until I happen to stumble upon it in the planetary display. . .  .

So it would be nice to get a separate warning message for story characters when they die off.  That way I can ensure "immediate new elections" :-)

Yes please!  I would like to see that the auto turns are interrupted when an important character dies and leaves a vacant position.   I think this is what checking "Story Character" should do, instead of making them immortal - a bit immersion breaking.

[Droll]

A special warning message when a story character dies.

Since gameplay is so much quicker in C# Aurora and since commander health is not differenciated from commander death, I quite often happen to miss when my planetary governors die and leave important positions vacant - until I happen to stumble upon it in the planetary display. . .  .

So it would be nice to get a separate warning message for story characters when they die off.  That way I can ensure "immediate new elections" :-)

Yes please!  I would like to see that the auto turns are interrupted when an important character dies and leaves a vacant position.   I think this is what checking "Story Character" should do, instead of making them immortal - a bit immersion breaking.

Nono please keep the immortality thing I actually like that and it makes late-game flag officer management much less of a nightmare for me.

However important character death should certainly be marked. I think naval admin commanders, academy commandants and planetary governors on planets marked as "important" by the player should throw interrupts and generate an "important commander death" event.

[Aloriel]

I would like to see a separation between messages when a character gets a disease and a character dies. If they die, I have to replace them. If they get a disease, they might live on for years.

I would also like to see the ability to suppress messages about officers dying when they are unassigned, as I often have a LOT more officers than I need.

[skoormit]

Currently, if I have a tanker Fleet A and a target Fleet B that needs fuel, I can only give an order to Fleet B to take fuel from Fleet A.

I would like to be able to give an order to Fleet A to give fuel to Fleet B.

This would allow me to completely automate the topping-up of my numerous fuel stations, saving a lot of time and clicks.

[Pury]

I think it would be cool if we could gather some research points/improved versions of particular weapon systems from using weapon systems in combat. It would simulate first practical usage of weapons, witch would contribute to advancing research of particular technology or in providing better designed equipment.

As I recall, there are already improved versions of ground combat units (although not tied to actual combat of said units IIRC) With new optional research rules that significantly slow down research improved spaceships components might see some use, as completely new technologies will take much more time to develop. (bonuses might also include reduced cost of production) We could also improve the used module itself, but this change would only accrue after overhaul of the ship in order to not just improve modules from ship in the middle of the battle and/or far from friendly planets.

It might be interesting to both include the new improved versions of components, and some limited RP for technologies used in combat. for example 200% of RP cost of the used module would be the max RP bonus for related technology.

[alex_brunius]

(bonuses might also include reduced cost of production)

I think it would make more sense to reduce cost of production based on how many of certain modules that has been produced, rather than if they were used or not in combat.

Some sort of gearing up bonus is used in alot of other games ( where fighter #200, tank #500 or missile #2000 becomes much cheaper and faster to produce than the first prototype ). This provides a very interesting tradeoff if you want to swap to new tech ASAP but lose production inertia, or keep building slightly out of date equipment in massive numbers instead.

Spaceships already has this partially built in thanks to retooling mechanics ( but it's all frontloaded as an extra cost before production can start at all instead ).