Author Topic: 3.1 Suggestions  (Read 10705 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Kurt

  • Gold Supporter
  • Vice Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1765
  • Thanked: 3389 times
  • 2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
    Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
    2023 Supporter 2023 Supporter : Donate for 2023
Re: 3.1 Suggestions
« Reply #90 on: October 02, 2008, 11:18:42 AM »
I have a couple of suggestions based on my thinking about where things are going in the 6 powers campaign:

1.  How about something like an "Improved Engineering Section", and Advanced, and so on.  Each would be the same size, but would offer improved function.  

2.  This one is somewhat tricky.  An "Automation" tech field, which could work one of a couple of ways.  On the one hand, it could reduce the population required for an installation by a fixed percentage, say 5% per level of improvement.  So a society with level 2 in Automation would only need 40,000 pop for a mining complex.  Or, on the other hand, each level of automation could reduce the percentage of the population required for service and food production, thus effectively increasing the productive population of any given population.  

Kurt
 

Offline Erik L

  • Administrator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 5654
  • Thanked: 366 times
  • Forum Admin
  • Discord Username: icehawke
  • 2020 Supporter 2020 Supporter : Donate for 2020
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
    Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
Re: 3.1 Suggestions
« Reply #91 on: October 19, 2008, 06:31:13 PM »
More of a "this would be cool".

A lot of us manually label sections of the map screens we take. It'd be nice if we could do this in Aurora itself on the Galactic map.

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20350 times
Re: 3.1 Suggestions
« Reply #92 on: October 19, 2008, 09:45:09 PM »
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
More of a "this would be cool".

A lot of us manually label sections of the map screens we take. It'd be nice if we could do this in Aurora itself on the Galactic map.
You can already do this. Open the galactic map and select the sidebar view entitled Map Notes (or use the Labels button at the top to reach the sane view). Click Add New Label. This creates a label that you can drag around the map. You can edit the text on the sidebar and change the font and size of the label too. Use Save System Positions to save any labels you have created. All the labels on my map screenshots have been created using this.

Steve
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20350 times
Re:
« Reply #93 on: October 20, 2008, 02:35:26 PM »
Quote from: "Kurt"
Steve-

I've been fiddling with the 6 Powers campaign lately, and I've got a question/suggestion.  On the officer corps screen, in the lower left hand corner, there are buttons for promote and demote.  No matter what I do I can't get them to work.  They are always greyed out.  

I'd really, really like to be able to use them.  There are occasions, I've found, when senior officers are, lets say, retired, voluntarily or not, and if I have to wait for Aurora to promote someone into the top slot naturally it will be years, if not decades, particularly at the start of the game.  
They are fixed for v3.2. Only the SM can use them though when realistic promotions are enabled.

Steve
 

Offline Kurt

  • Gold Supporter
  • Vice Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1765
  • Thanked: 3389 times
  • 2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
    Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
    2023 Supporter 2023 Supporter : Donate for 2023
Re:
« Reply #94 on: November 03, 2008, 12:57:11 PM »
Quote from: "Father Tim"
I would like to request a way to produce a less-than-maximum capability missile.  For example, my counter-missiles don't need a warhead greater than 1 point (in my opinion), but I'm forced to build them with the best possible explosives, vastly increasing their cost for zero benefit.

Likewise, as soon as I develop better missile engines I'm forced to use them in new designs.  If my existing stock of 80,000 missiles move at 2250 kms, having a few hundred that go 2400 is more annoying than helpful.  I realize I can continue to build the old missile design - my problem is that frequently I can't design a new missile that is *exactly* the same speed as the existing one, thus they can't be intermixed in a single salvo.

If that nice little window up in the top right corner of the Missile design window was editable, I could dial in exactly what I want.

Steve - this has been on my mind lately as well.  I like the concept of the slider bars, but even at quarter point increments it still introduces a granularity that can be annoying, especially in smaller missiles.  I have 1 space counter missiles that, at a low-moderate tech level, have a range of 75m kilometers because I have to give them a quarter space of fuel, but that quarter space of fuel gives them the outrageous range which they absolutely don't need given the fact that their tracking systems can only spot other missiles at 1.5m kilometers at best.  

Perhaps Father Tim's suggestion above has merit, include user entry boxes for each missile capability, so that I could enter 1 for my warhead's strength if I wanted, instead if a slider entry, and Aurora would figure out how much space it would take up in the missile.  I too have found myself becoming frustrated because I wanted a new missile to have the same speed as older missiles, for compatability reasons.  

Kurt

Note: I like the current system of 1/4 point increments on the slider bar much better than the older system, but as I noted, it still gives some weird results at the ends of the scale, in very large or very small missiles.
 

Offline Erik L

  • Administrator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 5654
  • Thanked: 366 times
  • Forum Admin
  • Discord Username: icehawke
  • 2020 Supporter 2020 Supporter : Donate for 2020
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
    Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
Re: 3.1 Suggestions
« Reply #95 on: November 03, 2008, 01:37:34 PM »
If you decrease the amount of space in the missile for engines, you can usually get the same speed as previous generations. That's what I tend to do, reduce engines and increase warhead/sensors.

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20350 times
Re: Re:
« Reply #96 on: November 03, 2008, 02:36:24 PM »
Quote from: "Kurt"
Quote from: "Father Tim"
I would like to request a way to produce a less-than-maximum capability missile.  For example, my counter-missiles don't need a warhead greater than 1 point (in my opinion), but I'm forced to build them with the best possible explosives, vastly increasing their cost for zero benefit.

Likewise, as soon as I develop better missile engines I'm forced to use them in new designs.  If my existing stock of 80,000 missiles move at 2250 kms, having a few hundred that go 2400 is more annoying than helpful.  I realize I can continue to build the old missile design - my problem is that frequently I can't design a new missile that is *exactly* the same speed as the existing one, thus they can't be intermixed in a single salvo.

If that nice little window up in the top right corner of the Missile design window was editable, I could dial in exactly what I want.

Steve - this has been on my mind lately as well.  I like the concept of the slider bars, but even at quarter point increments it still introduces a granularity that can be annoying, especially in smaller missiles.  I have 1 space counter missiles that, at a low-moderate tech level, have a range of 75m kilometers because I have to give them a quarter space of fuel, but that quarter space of fuel gives them the outrageous range which they absolutely don't need given the fact that their tracking systems can only spot other missiles at 1.5m kilometers at best.  

Perhaps Father Tim's suggestion above has merit, include user entry boxes for each missile capability, so that I could enter 1 for my warhead's strength if I wanted, instead if a slider entry, and Aurora would figure out how much space it would take up in the missile.  I too have found myself becoming frustrated because I wanted a new missile to have the same speed as older missiles, for compatability reasons.  

Note: I like the current system of 1/4 point increments on the slider bar much better than the older system, but as I noted, it still gives some weird results at the ends of the scale, in very large or very small missiles.
I am in the middle of modifying the missile design anyway as I had a brainwave while going to sleep last night that is going to allow me to create mines, sensor buoys and even missile-deployable mines/buoys with minor changes to the existing missile rules. This is based on (I think) Matt Wadwell's ideas but more on that in another post. As the window is in pieces anyway I have removed the sliders bars entirely and you can now just type in the amounts. As an example, here is a European-designed anti-missile that is 25% warhead, 1% fuel and 74% engines.

Code: [Select]
Anti-Missile
Missile Size: 1 MSP  (0.05 HS)     Warhead: 1    Armour: 0     Manoeuvre Rating: 10
Speed: 23700 km/s    Endurance: 1 minutes   Range: 2.0m km
Cost Per Missile: 0.6447
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 237%   3k km/s 70%   5k km/s 47.4%   10k km/s 23.7%
Materials Required:    0.25x Tritanium   0.1447x Gallicite   Fuel x25

Steve
 

Offline Kurt

  • Gold Supporter
  • Vice Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1765
  • Thanked: 3389 times
  • 2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
    Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
    2023 Supporter 2023 Supporter : Donate for 2023
Re: Re:
« Reply #97 on: November 03, 2008, 02:56:06 PM »
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
I am in the middle of modifying the missile design anyway as I had a brainwave while going to sleep last night that is going to allow me to create mines, sensor buoys and even missile-deployable mines/buoys with minor changes to the existing missile rules. This is based on (I think) Matt Wadwell's ideas but more on that in another post. As the window is in pieces anyway I have removed the sliders bars entirely and you can now just type in the amounts. As an example, here is a European-designed anti-missile that is 25% warhead, 1% fuel and 74% engines.

Code: [Select]
Anti-Missile
Missile Size: 1 MSP  (0.05 HS)     Warhead: 1    Armour: 0     Manoeuvre Rating: 10
Speed: 23700 km/s    Endurance: 1 minutes   Range: 2.0m km
Cost Per Missile: 0.6447
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 237%   3k km/s 70%   5k km/s 47.4%   10k km/s 23.7%
Materials Required:    0.25x Tritanium   0.1447x Gallicite   Fuel x25

Steve

Excellent, thanks Steve!

Kurt