Author Topic: C# Suggestions  (Read 272816 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline nuclearslurpee

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2984
  • Thanked: 2243 times
  • Radioactive frozen beverage.
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #2550 on: April 10, 2022, 10:43:06 PM »
Or in the Ship Design window, add an option under the Misc tab to toggle the default for Damage Control behavior to be automated or not on a class-wide basis, which when toggled would overwrite any individual ship settings?

This one please.
 
The following users thanked this post: BAGrimm

Offline TMaekler

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1112
  • Thanked: 298 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #2551 on: April 11, 2022, 07:49:28 AM »
Useable Planet Size

I think that the maximum amount of population for a body misses one feature - at least for role play: Scorched Earth. Not all areas of a planet can be used as living space for population. A lot of AARs have devastated Earth and start with a small number of people. But they grow like crazy because of the maximum possible on Earth. So a limiting factor like scorched Earth could help limiting pop growth to a more "realistic" factor; as well as limiting the maximum of people being able to live on earth. If Europe, Asia and Africa are scorched, we wouldn't be able to regrow world population to 8 Billion or more.

So if we could add a parameter to each world; something like: scorch percentage...
 

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2794
  • Thanked: 1054 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #2552 on: April 11, 2022, 06:48:16 PM »
2) A corp may have several division and also an allowance for independent regiment brigades assigned at corp level and again these may vary between High level HQ Units (600,000 ton corp has 4 120,000 ton Divisions, 2 20,000 ton brigades and 6 10,000 ton logistics regiments or maybe a 40,000 ton PDC Brigade and 2 10,000 ton logistics regiments)

This along with the previous point would probably suggest that a superior formation having only the HQs needed to control direct subordinates is the preferable solution.
It would also be more accurate to modern day militaries - a general commanding a division doesn't worry about the condition of the infantry companies despite them belonging to him, he worries about the regiments or brigades. The commanders of those worry about battalions, and the BN commanders worry about companies and so on. So, it would be best if each level only needs the HQ capacity for itself and its direct subordinates.

And not only is it realistic, it's more intuitive for players when building their armies, plus this way your army can grow organically without having the need to plan multiple levels beforehand.

Though the only problem I have with the current system is the crazy cost (in RP and BP) of high-level HQ's. Somehow the size has never bothered me!
 
The following users thanked this post: Vandermeer, papent, Agraelgrimm, Droll, BAGrimm, Sebmono, nuclearslurpee

Offline Iceranger

  • Registered
  • Commander
  • *********
  • I
  • Posts: 391
  • Thanked: 230 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #2553 on: April 14, 2022, 07:56:29 PM »
Not a gameplay related suggestion, but is it possible to make the tactical map center in the window properly when the window is resized? Right now it is always centered as if the window is full screen even after resized. This is extremely painful on ultrawide monitors...
 

Offline Sebmono

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • S
  • Posts: 46
  • Thanked: 27 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #2554 on: April 15, 2022, 05:40:44 AM »
It would also be more accurate to modern day militaries - a general commanding a division doesn't worry about the condition of the infantry companies despite them belonging to him, he worries about the regiments or brigades. The commanders of those worry about battalions, and the BN commanders worry about companies and so on. So, it would be best if each level only needs the HQ capacity for itself and its direct subordinates.

And not only is it realistic, it's more intuitive for players when building their armies, plus this way your army can grow organically without having the need to plan multiple levels beforehand.

Though the only problem I have with the current system is the crazy cost (in RP and BP) of high-level HQ's. Somehow the size has never bothered me!
Yes please, a thousand times this. Not having to wait decade to build a top-level HQ unit, just because I want to have a 4 layer OOB of 25k units would be amazing, and the flexibility to grow the armies more organically while also having more variation within would be fantastic.
 

Offline Aloriel

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 184
  • Thanked: 90 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #2555 on: April 19, 2022, 03:53:39 PM »
Add an RIO seat that provides similar bonuses as a tactical station, but only for fighters.
Sarah
Game Developer in Unity and UE4 and 5
 

Offline Migi

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 465
  • Thanked: 172 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #2556 on: April 20, 2022, 11:18:46 AM »
Add an RIO seat that provides similar bonuses as a tactical station, but only for fighters.

Unless you provide some new rationale, Steve has already considered and excluded this idea.

Quote
I don't plan to scale the modules to ship size or add extra crew. That would add extra complexity and make designing ships more difficult. For small ships, most command and control modules won't be used, and once you get past a certain size of ship, they will probably all be used. I am not trying to create a decision as to whether a battleship should have a CIC or Main Engineering, but rather to create meaningful choices for mid-range ships.

http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg101818#msg101818
 

Offline xenoscepter

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1157
  • Thanked: 318 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #2557 on: April 21, 2022, 06:55:04 PM »
 --- What if, instead of requiring an engine to be at least 1,250 Tons and at most 50% Power to be considered Commercial, it was changed to a drop down that let you choose between Military and Commercial with Commerical doubling the tonnage and halving the power? Crew would scale to as normal, half power = half crew and whatnot. Commercial engines would still get the bonus to fuel efficiency same as they do now.
 
The following users thanked this post: papent, Warer

Offline nuclearslurpee

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2984
  • Thanked: 2243 times
  • Radioactive frozen beverage.
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #2558 on: April 21, 2022, 07:43:44 PM »
--- What if, instead of requiring an engine to be at least 1,250 Tons and at most 50% Power to be considered Commercial, it was changed to a drop down that let you choose between Military and Commercial with Commerical doubling the tonnage and halving the power? Crew would scale to as normal, half power = half crew and whatnot. Commercial engines would still get the bonus to fuel efficiency same as they do now.

Two problems with this:

1. This makes the definition of a commercial engine murky, confusing, exploitative, and pointless. For example, if I understand this correctly I could make a 200% boost engine and click the "commercial" checkbox to have a 100% boost engine at 2x the size... I've designed a standard military engine that reads as commercial on sensors?? You could avoid such silliness by changing the suggestion to say that any engine with 50% boost is commercial, but in that case all we are doing is removing the size restriction which has already been put in place for a game design reason.

2. This requires making an "exception" in the game rules, when the design thrust of C# has been to reduce or eliminate such exceptions.

It is also worth noting - commercial engines do not get a special bonus to fuel efficiency in C#, whatsoever. The improvement in fuel efficiency for a low EP boost modifier is the same regardless of the engine classification.

I'm also unsure what problem this suggestion is trying to solve? We will always have an arbitrary commercial vs. military designation in Aurora, because the mechanics of it are too essential to the gameplay and frankly necessary to keep the level of logistics micromanagement down to reasonable levels. Given that, having a simple and clear distinction between what does and doesn't count as commercial makes much more sense than having a complicated mechanic just for...what reason?
 

Offline Aloriel

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 184
  • Thanked: 90 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #2559 on: April 21, 2022, 09:07:39 PM »
Make certain that passive sensors trigger the same interrupts as active sensors.

Basically, I have a series of passive sensor satellites designed to detect enemy ships. It turns out, this is a waste because they don't generate interrupts, or even detection messages sometimes (I suspect this latter bit might be a glitch, because I can clearly see the hostile ships with no message in the log). The advantage of passive sensors is that the enemy won't notice them unless they're on top of them or using active sensors themselves. This makes for a very survivable monitoring system.
Sarah
Game Developer in Unity and UE4 and 5
 

Offline nuclearslurpee

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2984
  • Thanked: 2243 times
  • Radioactive frozen beverage.
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #2560 on: April 21, 2022, 09:33:20 PM »
Make certain that passive sensors trigger the same interrupts as active sensors.

I believe this is being fixed in v2.0. The problem has been that event notifications for neutral or hostile contacts only fire for "new" contacts, so if a sensor (passive or active) happens to detect a contact in the same state as when that contact was last seen it will not fire an interrupt or an event notification.
 
The following users thanked this post: Aloriel

Offline Migi

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 465
  • Thanked: 172 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #2561 on: April 22, 2022, 11:23:37 AM »
I'm also unsure what problem this suggestion is trying to solve?

The problem, such as I intuit it, is that commercial ships cannot be small, because commercial engines cannot be small, and commercial ships cannot be relatively fast, because commercial engines have low EP per ton. The latter also limits the pulling power of Tugs.


Two problems with this:

I disagree with almost everything you said.

--- What if, instead of requiring an engine to be at least 1,250 Tons and at most 50% Power to be considered Commercial, it was changed to a drop down that let you choose between Military and Commercial with Commerical doubling the tonnage and halving the power? Crew would scale to as normal, half power = half crew and whatnot. Commercial engines would still get the bonus to fuel efficiency same as they do now.

As far as I can see you could make a (numbers are illustrative) 500 EP commercial engine and a 500 EP military engine, but the commercial engine would need to be 2 (or 4, I'm not quite clear) times as big.
This would add a new distinction to military vs commercial engines, because the EP per ton would be lower for commercial engines.
It would make commercial ships slower if they used the same % engine, or larger and more expensive to add power.

You could make a commercial engine twice as big as the technology engine size limit.
How would the size change interact with the fuel efficiency from engine size?
 

Offline xenoscepter

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1157
  • Thanked: 318 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #2562 on: April 22, 2022, 11:35:19 AM »
--- What if, instead of requiring an engine to be at least 1,250 Tons and at most 50% Power to be considered Commercial, it was changed to a drop down that let you choose between Military and Commercial with Commerical doubling the tonnage and halving the power? Crew would scale to as normal, half power = half crew and whatnot. Commercial engines would still get the bonus to fuel efficiency same as they do now.

Two problems with this:

1. This makes the definition of a commercial engine murky, confusing, exploitative, and pointless. For example, if I understand this correctly I could make a 200% boost engine and click the "commercial" checkbox to have a 100% boost engine at 2x the size... I've designed a standard military engine that reads as commercial on sensors?? You could avoid such silliness by changing the suggestion to say that any engine with 50% boost is commercial, but in that case all we are doing is removing the size restriction which has already been put in place for a game design reason.

2. This requires making an "exception" in the game rules, when the design thrust of C# has been to reduce or eliminate such exceptions.

It is also worth noting - commercial engines do not get a special bonus to fuel efficiency in C#, whatsoever. The improvement in fuel efficiency for a low EP boost modifier is the same regardless of the engine classification.

I'm also unsure what problem this suggestion is trying to solve? We will always have an arbitrary commercial vs. military designation in Aurora, because the mechanics of it are too essential to the gameplay and frankly necessary to keep the level of logistics micromanagement down to reasonable levels. Given that, having a simple and clear distinction between what does and doesn't count as commercial makes much more sense than having a complicated mechanic just for...what reason?

 --- If Commercial Engines get no fuel efficiency bonus above and beyond the typical, then that's fine, but the point is that a Commercial Engine can be used Commercial-y. It is valid for no maintenance designs. The Military Engine with 200% doesn't have this ability, while the commercial engine does, but trades away the power and instead gives that mass over to the ability to be No Maintenance when on a Commercial Design. Using Commercial Engines on a Military Ship thus have no utility anymore, since the No Maintenance is wasted.

 --- This streamlines the how and why, since we can assume the how is that whatever is being used to make the Military one go 200% is halved or being used to the effect of making a smaller one at 100%, while using that space saved to add the Magic Doesn't Break Smoke that makes Commercial Engines do their thing. Likewise, the arbitrary engine size and power limit is no longer an arbitrary limit, but a flexible one with a simple toggle that asks the player: "Is this for a Warship or Not?" Another problem it solves is not being able to make tiny Commercial Ships... or even FAC sized ones, to be honest. Currently every Commercial ship MUST exceed 1,250 Tons... before Crew Quarters, Fuel and the lot.

 --- What will this be used for? Currently Fighter-sized cryo is bugged since Fighters still can't land on planets to offload colonists... so that's of no use. However, the addition of Small Craft Refueling System means a No Maintenace FAC tanker sees a good benefit from this change. Likewise with Deep Space Populations and the renamed Orbital Habitats... a centralized Colonist supply could be established with Commercial FACs / Fighter scale colonist shuttles refilling the "stock" Tiny FAC sized or smaller scouts receive a good benefit from this, since they would need no maintenance and no additional deployment for their missions, being able to relocate under their own power and hang around forever.

 --- Finally, this does not create an exception to the rules at all. Commercial Engines are ALREADY an exception made more exceptional by the arbitrary limits. Jump Drives ALREADY use a toggle to this end, but regular engines don't. Such a toggle streamlines, simplifies and brings regular engines into line with the Jump Engines that they mechanically interact with. This eliminates a special mechanic rather than makes it more complex. A toggle is straightforward, highly visible and not confusing to a new player who wouldn't realize it's 50% or lower AND has to be AT LEAST 1,250 Tons.

 --- Hell, while we're at it, why not do the same for sensors? Give it a dropdown to tag it as Commercial, same size, but half the strength... but putting it on a ship doesn't make it military?

 
The following users thanked this post: papent, Droll, Warer

Offline Droll

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • D
  • Posts: 1704
  • Thanked: 599 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #2563 on: April 22, 2022, 11:42:21 AM »
--- What if, instead of requiring an engine to be at least 1,250 Tons and at most 50% Power to be considered Commercial, it was changed to a drop down that let you choose between Military and Commercial with Commerical doubling the tonnage and halving the power? Crew would scale to as normal, half power = half crew and whatnot. Commercial engines would still get the bonus to fuel efficiency same as they do now.

Two problems with this:

1. This makes the definition of a commercial engine murky, confusing, exploitative, and pointless. For example, if I understand this correctly I could make a 200% boost engine and click the "commercial" checkbox to have a 100% boost engine at 2x the size... I've designed a standard military engine that reads as commercial on sensors?? You could avoid such silliness by changing the suggestion to say that any engine with 50% boost is commercial, but in that case all we are doing is removing the size restriction which has already been put in place for a game design reason.

2. This requires making an "exception" in the game rules, when the design thrust of C# has been to reduce or eliminate such exceptions.

It is also worth noting - commercial engines do not get a special bonus to fuel efficiency in C#, whatsoever. The improvement in fuel efficiency for a low EP boost modifier is the same regardless of the engine classification.

I'm also unsure what problem this suggestion is trying to solve? We will always have an arbitrary commercial vs. military designation in Aurora, because the mechanics of it are too essential to the gameplay and frankly necessary to keep the level of logistics micromanagement down to reasonable levels. Given that, having a simple and clear distinction between what does and doesn't count as commercial makes much more sense than having a complicated mechanic just for...what reason?

 --- If Commercial Engines get no fuel efficiency bonus above and beyond the typical, then that's fine, but the point is that a Commercial Engine can be used Commercial-y. It is valid for no maintenance designs. The Military Engine with 200% doesn't have this ability, while the commercial engine does, but trades away the power and instead gives that mass over to the ability to be No Maintenance when on a Commercial Design. Using Commercial Engines on a Military Ship thus have no utility anymore, since the No Maintenance is wasted.

 --- This streamlines the how and why, since we can assume the how is that whatever is being used to make the Military one go 200% is halved or being used to the effect of making a smaller one at 100%, while using that space saved to add the Magic Doesn't Break Smoke that makes Commercial Engines do their thing. Likewise, the arbitrary engine size and power limit is no longer an arbitrary limit, but a flexible one with a simple toggle that asks the player: "Is this for a Warship or Not?" Another problem it solves is not being able to make tiny Commercial Ships... or even FAC sized ones, to be honest. Currently every Commercial ship MUST exceed 1,250 Tons... before Crew Quarters, Fuel and the lot.

 --- What will this be used for? Currently Fighter-sized cryo is bugged since Fighters still can't land on planets to offload colonists... so that's of no use. However, the addition of Small Craft Refueling System means a No Maintenace FAC tanker sees a good benefit from this change. Likewise with Deep Space Populations and the renamed Orbital Habitats... a centralized Colonist supply could be established with Commercial FACs / Fighter scale colonist shuttles refilling the "stock" Tiny FAC sized or smaller scouts receive a good benefit from this, since they would need no maintenance and no additional deployment for their missions, being able to relocate under their own power and hang around forever.

 --- Finally, this does not create an exception to the rules at all. Commercial Engines are ALREADY an exception made more exceptional by the arbitrary limits. Jump Drives ALREADY use a toggle to this end, but regular engines don't. Such a toggle streamlines, simplifies and brings regular engines into line with the Jump Engines that they mechanically interact with. This eliminates a special mechanic rather than makes it more complex. A toggle is straightforward, highly visible and not confusing to a new player who wouldn't realize it's 50% or lower AND has to be AT LEAST 1,250 Tons.

 --- Hell, while we're at it, why not do the same for sensors? Give it a dropdown to tag it as Commercial, same size, but half the strength... but putting it on a ship doesn't make it military?

Not sure how I feel about large civilian sensors, sure they're less powerful for balance and I assume still expensive to build but having maintenance free mega-radar seems a bit off given how sensitive and delicate sensor equipment is supposed to be.

With engines though I'm kind of onboard with the idea of having a commercial toggle that is equivalent to current power/mass/fuel efficiency ratio to allow for commercial "fighters".
 

Offline xenoscepter

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1157
  • Thanked: 318 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #2564 on: April 22, 2022, 11:43:08 AM »
~~snippy snippy~~
You could make a commercial engine twice as big as the technology engine size limit.
How would the size change interact with the fuel efficiency from engine size?

 --- I failed to communicate this, and I'm sorry for that, but my assumption was the Engine Size tech was still the upper limit for what you could choose as a base. So a 200% Military Engine that was 1,250 tons would indeed become a 100% Commercial Engine of 2,500 Tons. I deemed that mostly irrelevant since it confers no advantage, however with consideration of larger engines being more fuel efficient than smaller per hullsize that might not actually be the case.

 --- I'd say there's a few ways to address that:
  -   Keep the engine boost penalty, but apply the efficiency bonus derived from the doubled size on top of it.
  -   Tweak nothing and just allow Commercial exceed the Engine tech size, since you still couldn't build a 200% Military engine of 2,500 tons w/o said tech and thus not devaluing the tech.

I'd go for the second one personally since it's internally consistent with other things in Aurora, namely the shipyards It'd likewise retain some value in a Commerical Engine for Military Applications. Verisimilitude is always nice.  :)
 
The following users thanked this post: Warer