Aurora 4x
VB6 Aurora => Aurora Suggestions => Topic started by: bean on April 16, 2012, 05:25:32 PM
-
I learned of 5.7 earlier today, and did some thinking about other stuff I'd like to see. Most notably, improved EW and ground combat. Both of these systems are primitive in the extreme right now, so here are my ideas:
EW:
Systems now generate EW points equal to their tech rating. There are two types of points (ECM and ECCM). Both systems come in three types (Point, Fleet, and Attack.) Point systems only add to your EW score, while Fleet add to all of those in the fleet, probably with only the two best systems counting. Attack affects a single target only, or possibly one fleet. To figure out the score, square the individual scores, add them, and take the square root. Subtract ECCM from ECM, and the result is what you multiply the Ph by.
I'm not sure how difficult this would be to implement, but the current system is really rudimentary.
Ground Combat:
This is more a set of ideas, which can be decoupled.
Quantized ground combat:
Right now, you either have the colony or you don't. This would split the colony into a number of segments, each of which is contested separately. Initially, this would probably be 10 identical segments. The attacker could push the defender back, gaining territory, but also the problems of occupation. PDCs would be allocated to each segment, and would have to be cleared to take that segment.
Later on, there would be some tactical element to this. Land a long ways away from your target, and work your way in. Still not that many section, maybe a couple dozen. Segments are non-homogenous, and terrain modifiers might exist.
Different structure:
Right now, all ground units have attack and defense scores. Add in some form of combined arms bonuses. Each battalion has varying numbers of different unit types, like Infantry, Armor, APCs, Recon, Artillery, Marines, Combat Engineers, etc. Some have direct combat strength, while other have special types of strength, which give you a bonus, particularly if your opponent lacks them. Artillery would be a good example of this. These units would each have a tech level, and you would upgrade your tanks separately from your infantry and so on. This allows you to specialize your forces based on role and play style. Also, the upgrades wouldn't be instant, and you might be able to have reserves or units with second-line equipment (the garrison troops get the castoffs when you upgrade the assault units). Also, units like armor take up transport bay space as well as troop space. Also, some amount of support troops are required for any significant deployment, or the unit begins to take readiness and morale losses.
Supplies:
Whenever a unit is engaged in ground fighting, it requires supplies. These supplies are separate from starship maintainence supplies, and are used by the unit in question. Support troops might generate these slowly, but they normally have to be shipped in.
That's the bulk of my suggestions, though I might flesh them out in more detail later.
Also, how are missiles being affected by 5.7?
-
>> EW:
Given that a fleet can be spread over an arbitrarily large volume of space, I don't think a "Fleet" system would work. For the other two, modelling after SFBs EW system might work better. In SFB, ECM systems give a 1 point die roll shift based on the square root of the points difference between Ship A and Ship B.
Ship A has 1 ECM point, Ship B has no ECCM, 1 - 0 = 1 => 1 point shift on all fire by Ship B
Ship A has 5 ECM point, Ship B has 1 ECCM, 4 = 1 = 4 => 2 point shift on all fire by Ship B
All ships are limited to 6 self generated points, but can accept points from natural sources (asteroid fields, nebulas, other energetic space terrain, etc) and Scouts. Scouts are specialised ships, with Scout Channels replacing heavy weapons. Scout Channels cost power to activate, and once active can be used to "lend EW" (paid for with more power) to other ships within 15 hexes (1 hex = 10k km, conveniently enough), including enemy ships as "offensive EW", which counts towards the ECM values of any ship *targetted* by the affected vessel.
Obviously, the concept doesn't translate directly, because Aurora doesn't use die rolls, but you could convert the concept to fit :-
Make ECM systems a variable size system, which draw reactor power from the same power pool as weapons. Larger systems can draw more power in total (5 points per HS, or whatever), and the actual number of ECM points produced is multiplied by an efficiency rating derived from a separate tech line. Each tech level produces 10% more ECM per power point
A 1HS, efficiency 1 ECM component can produce up to 5 ( (5*1)*1) ECM points
A 2HS, efficiency 3 ECM component can produce up to 12 ( (5*2)*1.2) ECM points, etc
ECCM systems are similar, but smaller (maybe 0.1 HS size increments) because a ship may need many of them.
When fire is calculated, the EW calculation is (sqrt((targets total ECM)-(FCs total ECCM))*10% = fire adjustment value (deducted from beam hit %ages, or missile lock ranges, negative values treated as 0). Lending ranges are a function of component size and tech. Larger ships (which can support larger EW and power installations) and higher tech ships therefore get an advantage, but not a crushing one. Fleet EW ships, with extensive facilities, can radically affect combat outcomes. A fleet with extensive Scout support can beat a larger / better weapons tech opponent by rendering their weapons ineffective.
You would start needing to get into power management for ships though. If the reactors suffered damage, and available power reduced, how would it be distributed between weapons and EW systems?
SFB also has rules for crew quality and EW. For Aurora, crew grade could also be a consideration. A ship full of green consripts on their first cruise aren't as proficient with EW systems as a combat-hardened veteran crew. Spoilers can have advanced versions that produce more base points per power applied, salvageable and researchable in the same way as their other unique techs.
>> Ground Combat:
I definitely think a more detailed ground unit model would be nice, but I'm not sure about adding ground combat locations. I shouldn't need 10 PDCs to properly defend an asteroid. Since even quite large non-homeworld colonies are going to be pretty small places, I don't have a problem with modelling them as point targets, simply controlled by one side or another.
Now, a more detailed ground unit composition system, so you can build tank heavy / infantry heavy / etc formations would be interesting. The existing unit types do a fair job of approximating different unit roles, and as you can build BTN => BGD => DIV, you can customise a force quite a bit now. Increasing granularity to company level would let you custom build BTNs too
>> Supplies
Starship maint supplies are for starships really. The mineral costs are duranium, uridium and gallicite, so it's essentially structural spars, spare scanner and engine pieces. Do you really want to have to manage another category of "supplies", just to do something you can already do? Even a size 1 AMM is 2.5 tons, massively larger than any ordanance ground troops could realistically use. Even a heavy modern ATGM is only 20 - 25 kg, not including launcher / mounting gear
-
Starship maint supplies are for starships really. The mineral costs are duranium, uridium and gallicite, so it's essentially structural spars, spare scanner and engine pieces. Do you really want to have to manage another category of "supplies", just to do something you can already do? Even a size 1 AMM is 2.5 tons, massively larger than any ordanance ground troops could realistically use. Even a heavy modern ATGM is only 20 - 25 kg, not including launcher / mounting gear
I think that some different kind of supplies for ground forces would make sense however. This would mean that interdiction of these supply routes would be a valid tactic (mostly applicable to multi-faction starts, but could also lead to fun with some of our spoiler friends...).
Failing to provide enough supplies would lead to rapidly decreasing combat effectiveness. Attacking forces should probably use up more of them than defending forces.
-
I'm also a fan of having combat supplies on top of just moving the troops around. Could be a balance with shipping different types of troop as well - Ie Heavy Assaults use up a lot more per five day compared to garrison troops.
You could also then add a further option on from attack and defend to siege which could limit offensive options but effectively starve the hostiles of being able to resupply.
It would also be nice to see badly damaged hostile units surrender rather than fight to the bitter end based on their morale.
Finally would be nice to see some air units included although could get very complicated when thinking about what environments they could actually deploy in and whether you would want units that could deploy from orbit. Unlike current fighters these would be groups of fighters for each unit and not individually designed.
-
EW:
Fleet was meant to be read as task group. I'm less concerned about the exact mechanics then the overall concept, so the SFB approach works too.
Ground:
Good point about asteroids. Maybe the sections are semi population based. Anything under 100 million is one section, up to 300 million is 2 and so on.
-
I'm going to expand some on how the combined arms thing would work. The scenario is that you've found an enemy infantry battalion dug in around an installation you'd like to have. It's a leg formation, and it has no vehicles. You land the 1st Expeditionary Brigade, which is designed for this job. The brigade is a mix of tanks, powered armor, and IFV-mounted infantry. It also incorporates recon elements, artillery, and combat engineers. All PDCs have been neutralized, so a bombardment frigate is in support.
The battle works something like this. All of the major combat strength is added up, and the defender's is modified by the fact that they're dug in, but that bonus is reduced some because of the combat engineers. The attackers armor bonus comes from the tanks, IFVs and powered armor, but is reduced because the defenders have anti-tank weapons. However, they have no armor of their own, so the attackers still get a bonus. The fact that the defenders are dug in also reduces the attacker's mobility bonus, which comes from the fact that all of the units are mounted. The attackers also get bonuses due to the defender's lack of recon and artillery units, and the presence of the bombardment frigate. It's sort of like a very complicated rock, paper, scissors, but with random elements added as well.
Oh, and aircraft would be another type of unit. Air defense would suppress them.
I'd also add surface defense troops, which primarily attack spacecraft in low orbit. See http://www.rocketpunk-manifesto.com/2009/06/space-warfare-i-gravity-well.html for an overview of what those would be. They would neutralize bombardment vessels, and generally make landings less healthy, but they're difficult to attack from space.
One more (unrelated) thing. It would be nice to be able to convince other civilizations to join you peacefully, particularly if you have overwhelming firepower in their system. They know you can take them over by force, and decide to make it easier for everyone.
-
This probably won't be available until 6+, but...
It'd be nice to set a value on a civilian contract and the civilian AI goes for the contract with the highest return. So if you have two mineral contracts on a world, you can set a destination contract to have a higher value, thus the civs will try to fulfill it first.
It'd also be nice if the contracts were by consignment, i.e. I put a contract for 5 Mass Drivers (supply) on planet A at a value of 100 wealth each. When a civ picks those up, I get a payment of 500 wealth. When the MD are delivered for 150 wealth each at planet B, I pay out 750 wealth.
This could also lead to bidding wars where civilian lines bid on the rights to carry the goods. Of course, they shouldn't go over what they can sell them for at a later date, and should maintain some profit margin.
-
I'd like to see ...
Light Infantry and Super Heavy Armour units.
-
I'd also add surface defense troops, which primarily attack spacecraft in low orbit. See http://www.rocketpunk-manifesto.com/2009/06/space-warfare-i-gravity-well.html for an overview of what those would be. They would neutralize bombardment vessels, and generally make landings less healthy, but they're difficult to attack from space.
What would differentiate them from PDCs? Other than I guess you could offload them onto an enemy planet. But that would be sorta lame anyway. Right now, you can even bring small prefab PDCs with an assault group for that sort of thing. Or tug some orbital forts along with your assault force. xD
I'd like to see ...
Light Infantry and Super Heavy Armour units.
well what would light infantry do? Theres really not much left in terms of unit roles, unless ground combat is radically revised. If super heavy armor was just like current HVA but better... it would kind of obsolete HVA. I mean, I'd love for a Bolo-style 'mobile pdc' kind of thing, but I think that's going back to radical ground revision.
-
well what would light infantry do? Theres really not much left in terms of unit roles, unless ground combat is radically revised. If super heavy armor was just like current HVA but better... it would kind of obsolete HVA. I mean, I'd love for a Bolo-style 'mobile pdc' kind of thing, but I think that's going back to radical ground revision.
Light Infantry would be cheaper to produce and obviously lighter to transport. Good for quick deployments.
As for Super Heavy Armour (OGRES) , I did a test game several versions ago where I introduced them into the Database. Made them nearly impossible to transport but extremely powerful. Good for Planetary Defence
-
Light Infantry would be cheaper to produce and obviously lighter to transport. Good for quick deployments.
As for Super Heavy Armour (OGRES) , I did a test game several versions ago where I introduced them into the Database. Made them nearly impossible to transport but extremely powerful. Good for Planetary Defence
These would both make more sense if the additional dimension of supply was added to grount combat. That was SHA would not obsolete HVA, as the latter would still be more supply efficient or something. Likewise 'Light' units would be less supply dependant, and more suited for operations in distant areas.
-
What would differentiate them from PDCs? Other than I guess you could offload them onto an enemy planet. But that would be sorta lame anyway. Right now, you can even bring small prefab PDCs with an assault group for that sort of thing. Or tug some orbital forts along with your assault force. xD
They're immune to long-range bombardment, and, being abstracted, can attacked orbital bombardment forces over a few days.
I see light infantry as primarily defensive. While you get the most firepower per wealth and supply, there are no combined arms bonuses. And I see artillery in the SHA role. It's got a lot of firepower, but it eats supplies.
-
Definitions have changed as warfare has evolved, but currently, Light Role troops are largely defined by lack of tactical mobility (footsloggers), high strategic mobility (air or sea delivered, light TOE, hence no huge logistics train to transport) and low anti tank capability.
The classic Light Role mission is probably Operation Market Garden. Drop large numbers of troops on a fixed strategic position(s) behind enemy lines, and task them to hold until friendly heavies (ie the armour columns) can relieve them. Air and artillery units are tasked to keep enemy armour and large troop concentrations away, and the troops in place rely on superior training and morale and often their specialised lightened heavy equipment to defeat local counterattacks.
In the context of Aurora, things might be a bit different, since there is the additional aspect of space control to consider, and once you get personal power armour, the distinction between infantry and tanks get a bit blurred
-
They're immune to long-range bombardment,
That would be nonsensical. There's nothing a mobile unit could do that a PDC can't.
-
That would be nonsensical. There's nothing a mobile unit could do that a PDC can't.
Duck?
-
Duck?
ROFL!
-
That would be nonsensical. There's nothing a mobile unit could do that a PDC can't.
What do you mean? If I have a missile on a trailer designed to look like a Coke truck, eliminating it from long range is a bit more difficult. And once I fire, it's just a truck. Admittedly, I generally deal with PDCs from orbit, so I'm assuming that they're gone, and you don't want the enemy bombarding you unhindered. Also, it would kill a certain percentage of landing troops unless suppressed.
Light infantry is generally used that way today. The problem is that in Aurora it doesn't work that way. At the moment, any sort of special mission is best undertaken by heavy assault troops, as they have the same transport requirements and more firepower. An alternative is to impose some sort of unloading time penalty on units that aren't infantry (light infantry and marines). However, unloading transports can't be shot at if they're at a friendly colony with sufficient troops. I'm not sure how it would work, but it's the only way I see to allow light infantry to do the job described. If we get some sort of map (which would be cool, but I'm not going to hold my breath) then Market Garden-type operations become more plausible.
What I see them doing under my outline (discounting the above suggestion) is working as either fleet troops (Marines, but without the boarding training) or as garrison units. Mobility is no longer a factor, and lack of armor can be dealt with by digging in.
Under the combined arms plan, it might make sense to only allow infantry units to board, and hindering combat by any other units caught aboard transports. Clearing PDCs would be another nice role for them.
-
In the context of Aurora, things might be a bit different, since there is the additional aspect of space control to consider, and once you get personal power armour, the distinction between infantry and tanks get a bit blurred
Is 1st Gen Mobile Infantry really in Power Armour ?
I picture it more like light Motorized Infantry where Assault Infantry may (depending on your background/preferences) be the Power Armour Troops.
-
backstab, you never read Starship Troopers? ;D
-
The fact that it's called "mobile infantry" does not mean that it is the MI from Starship Troopers. It could be motorized infantry, called mobile infantry because it sounds cooler.
-
The extreme jump in attack and defence capability from Low Tech Armour and Low Tech Infantry to even 1st Gen Mobile and Assault Infantry definitely warrants powered armour of some sort for each trooper and more. Even then it's iffy - a modern armoured/mechanized division has incredible amounts of firepower available to it even just organically as it includes main battle tanks, infantry mounted in IFVs, ATGMs, self-propelled mortars and artillery and both scout and attack helicopters. The fact that a single Garrison Battalion can effectively stop the attack of a Low Tech Armour division means that there must be a significant leap of personal capability from pre-TN troops to post-TN troops. Hence why they should definitely be imagined as to having Powered Armour of sorts, built out of Duranium which cannot be penetrated with small arms or classic high explosives.
When you consider the far smaller upgrades to post-TN troops through Ground Unit Strength XX, it's fairly clear to me that your scientists are only tinkering the Powered Armours and TN-weaponry to be bit better.
I really don't see the need for additional units unless Ground Warfare is overhauled significantly. Currently it's abstracted fairly well and simple. Adding any further layers of detail runs the risk of actually making the combat worse - the less abstract it is, the harder it becomes for players to suspend their disbelief when something that is routine in actual military simulations and war games cannot be reproduced in Aurora.
In a utopia, Aurora would be combined with something like The Operational Art of War 3, to fully cover complex planet-side operations and campaigns.
-
The extreme jump in attack and defence capability from Low Tech Armour and Low Tech Infantry to even 1st Gen Mobile and Assault Infantry definitely warrants powered armour of some sort for each trooper and more. Even then it's iffy - a modern armoured/mechanized division has incredible amounts of firepower available to it even just organically as it includes main battle tanks, infantry mounted in IFVs, ATGMs, self-propelled mortars and artillery and both scout and attack helicopters. The fact that a single Garrison Battalion can effectively stop the attack of a Low Tech Armour division means that there must be a significant leap of personal capability from pre-TN troops to post-TN troops. Hence why they should definitely be imagined as to having Powered Armour of sorts, built out of Duranium which cannot be penetrated with small arms or classic high explosives.
I'm pretty sure that a Tank Battalion equipped with M1A1's would be able to hold the line against a WW2 Armoured Division and there is no magic leap in technology ... a Tank is a Tank
-
I'm pretty sure that a Tank Battalion equipped with M1A1's would be able to hold the line against a WW2 Armoured Division and there is no magic leap in technology ... a Tank is a Tank
I would argue that there was a magic leap in technology: the first practical transistor (enabling most of modern electronics) was produced in 1947.
-
I would argue that there was a magic leap in technology: the first practical transistor (enabling most of modern electronics) was produced in 1947.
The jump from multi crewed AFV to Single Man Power Armour is a greater gap than what you described. I suppose everyone has there own interpretation on what equipment each unit uses. But I do think there is room to add a few more units without disrupting the game. As I have said before, I have introduced a number of new formations to the database before without any problems.
-
I would argue that there was a magic leap in technology: the first practical transistor (enabling most of modern electronics) was produced in 1947.
I would say it was not magic but good scientific research. Yes transistors enabled modern electronics. but by definition, if there is a "modern" electronics then there should be an "archaic electronics" (for lack of a better term). This was vacuum tubes. The first tubes were around 1907. The first patents for a solid state device were in the 1920's. This device was intended as a replacement for tubes. They knew back then how tubes worked. In today's terms they were looking for smaller packaging, higher reliability, and lower production costs. Which is what the transistor provided. Yes it revolutionized electronics but not thru magic. And tubes are still being used in various applications. Hi voltage, over the airwaves TV broadcasts, and the ever debatable music listening; many musicians prefer tube amplifiers. You could still have your tube ipod if you're willing to drive it around in a tractor-trailer.
-
I don't get it, i keep posting things to this thread and they get eaten. :( Since three times of typing the same post is a little excessive, suffice it to say theres nothing an space artillery unit could do that a (underground, disguised) or (far more discrete and otherwise flexible) current ground unit could not do. So an arbitary bombrdment immunity seems totally arbitrary to me, and you can already build PDCs to attrition or destroy incoming dropships.
-
I'm pretty sure that a Tank Battalion equipped with M1A1's would be able to hold the line against a WW2 Armoured Division and there is no magic leap in technology ... a Tank is a Tank
I used Garrison Bn as an example because its the weakest actual unit, thus your example should be "Would a modern infantry battalion stop a WW2 Armoured Division?" And the answer is: nope.
And that's with 50-60 years of technological development.
-
I used Garrison Bn as an example because its the weakest actual unit, thus your example should be "Would a modern infantry battalion stop a WW2 Armoured Division?" And the answer is: nope.
And that's with 50-60 years of technological development.
That's a lot more of an open question then you make it out to be. For example, what kind of infantry battalion? Mechanized? Light Infantry? Also, what's the situation? Is the battalion trying to hold a narrow pass? Then quite likely they could. Also, how much ammo do they have? Modern units are vastly more lethal then their World War 2 counterparts. I would expect a modern armored battalion to be able to defeat a WWII armored division if they had sufficient ammo. An infantry battalion is a bit less likely, but if they were on a narrow enough front, it's entirely possible. ATGMs are wonderful things, and we have far better light anti-tank weapons then they did back then.
Edit:
For anyone who wants more data on this (WWII vs. Modern units) I'd find TRADOC Bulletin No 8, Modern Weapons on the Modern Battlefield.
-
I'd like to see some direct beam to ground assault weapon, to allow the leveling of a planet without irradiating the landscape. Perhaps a super short ranged, relatively weak but rapid fire weapon?
-
I'd like to see some direct beam to ground assault weapon, to allow the leveling of a planet without irradiating the landscape. Perhaps a super short ranged, relatively weak but rapid fire weapon?
The current mechanics are designed to prevent this :)
I didn't want to make it easy to wipe out an entire alien race and then move in your own settlers the next day. In a game called Starfire, the above used to be a tactic known as "Genocide for Fun and Profit" (GFFP). I wanted to have some significant decisions as part of planetary conquest. Either wipe out aliens but destroy the environment or mount an invasion to conquer the planet without massive environment damage.
Steve
-
Could we at least get some sort of bombardment capability against enemy forces? It's sort of annoying that all lasers are blocked by the atmosphere, when visible light ones aren't IRL. This would force specialized bombardment units later in the game, as I'm not going to mount visible light lasers generally when I have far UV ones available.
-
The current mechanics are designed to prevent this :)
I didn't want to make it easy to wipe out an entire alien race and then move in your own settlers the next day. In a game called Starfire, the above used to be a tactic known as "Genocide for Fun and Profit" (GFFP). I wanted to have some significant decisions as part of planetary conquest. Either wipe out aliens but destroy the environment or mount an invasion to conquer the planet without massive environment damage.
Steve
But if the atmospheric pressure is less than 1 atmosphere an advanced 20cm X-ray laser can do it now :) I was quite impressed how much damage they could do to a mining colony ;D
-
Could we at least get some sort of bombardment capability against enemy forces? It's sort of annoying that all lasers are blocked by the atmosphere, when visible light ones aren't IRL. This would force specialized bombardment units later in the game, as I'm not going to mount visible light lasers generally when I have far UV ones available.
Missiles work nice. Torpedos should too. Make all the bad troop go away ;)
-
Maybe an additional research tree in Missiles/Kinetic Weapons for reduced radiation warheads?
-
Missiles work nice. Torpedos should too. Make all the bad troop go away ;)
Yes. They also leave radiation everywhere.
And the 1 atmosphere thing annoys me. Why that arbitrary cutoff? In reality, it should be based on pressure/gravity, to simulate the thickness of the atmosphere in question.
And I would definitely like reduced radiation warheads. Actually, nuclear shaped charges would be better, both from realism and utility standpoints. (Normal warhead damage to population and radiation, some multiple of damage to target.)
-
Yes. They also leave radiation everywhere.
And the 1 atmosphere thing annoys me. Why that arbitrary cutoff? In reality, it should be based on pressure/gravity, to simulate the thickness of the atmosphere in question.
And I would definitely like reduced radiation warheads. Actually, nuclear shaped charges would be better, both from realism and utility standpoints. (Normal warhead damage to population and radiation, some multiple of damage to target.)
That goes back to GFFP. If it's easy to take over an enemy planet, there's no reason not to. Why bother making friends when you can wipe them out and take over their real estate?
Beams are already less attenuated with pressures less than 1.0 atm. I don't recall if it's a linear scaling (.5 atm = 50% damage) or not. I suppose Steve needed a point where he said "Beams do not work through atmospheres this dense." And that was 1.0 atm.
The shaped charge is an interesting idea. PDC-buster warheads.
-
That goes back to GFFP. If it's easy to take over an enemy planet, there's no reason not to. Why bother making friends when you can wipe them out and take over their real estate?
Beams are already less attenuated with pressures less than 1.0 atm. I don't recall if it's a linear scaling (.5 atm = 50% damage) or not. I suppose Steve needed a point where he said "Beams do not work through atmospheres this dense." And that was 1.0 atm.
The shaped charge is an interesting idea. PDC-buster warheads.
My point on beams is that atmospheric thickness (path length * density) is not linear with sea-level pressure. It varies inversely with surface gravity as well. That would be an interesting mechanical change. It's easier to terraform high-gravity worlds, because you get more pressure out of a given mass of gas.
-
My point on beams is that atmospheric thickness (path length * density) is not linear with sea-level pressure. It varies inversely with surface gravity as well. That would be an interesting mechanical change. It's easier to terraform high-gravity worlds, because you get more pressure out of a given mass of gas.
Except that in almost all cases, a higher gravity world is also going to be larger, thus requiring a larger amount of gas to achieve the same pressure. My brain isn't working right now or I might try to calculate if the gravity saves you more atmosphere than the extra surface area costs you.
-
Except that in almost all cases, a higher gravity world is also going to be larger, thus requiring a larger amount of gas to achieve the same pressure. My brain isn't working right now or I might try to calculate if the gravity saves you more atmosphere than the extra surface area costs you.
Good point. I'm sort of kicking myself over missing it.
As to what it does, I believe that gravity scales directly with radius, while surface area scales with the square of radius, so it is easier to terraform smaller planets. The above assumes constant density, of course.
-
I know you are assuming constant density, but wouldn't constant would be impossible to achieve? With differing gravity the compaction of the primary materials that make up the body will vary. Unless a given body is exactly the same material composition if you change its radius its density is sure to alter. Not to mention the effect, although I think slight, that orbiting bodies would have on the gravitational pull. I am no scientist, but I would assume with enough orbiting bodies when several of them line up you would have a big change in the (perceived?) localized gravity and it would change the compaction and density of the materials as well.
-
I know you are assuming constant density, but wouldn't constant would be impossible to achieve? With differing gravity the compaction of the primary materials that make up the body will vary. Unless a given body is exactly the same material composition if you change its radius its density is sure to alter. Not to mention the effect, although I think slight, that orbiting bodies would have on the gravitational pull. I am no scientist, but I would assume with enough orbiting bodies when several of them line up you would have a big change in the (perceived?) localized gravity and it would change the compaction and density of the materials as well.
That's what is known as tidal effects. It does happen, but if it's at the level where it can be felt, it generally would prevent any body from being formed.
As for density, we're dealing with solids, which don't compress much, if at all. I simply stated it because it was necessary for the comparison. Given differing compositions, we'll see differences in density.
-
For orbital bombardment maybe a better way of doing it is to reflect the lasers in the attack strength of the troops you are using on the ground. This then represents the ability of low orbit ships to support troops with fire missions on identified hostile troops without giving them a mechanic of mass destruction. I also prefer the idea that orbital laser systems are doing precision damage rather than wide spread damage.
As mentioned by another poster before you could also require the use of visible light lasers with a corresponding low range that makes them of limited use in ship to ship combat and gives another design decision.
To me this strikes a good balance between simple world destruction and reflecting the tactical advantage of gaining low orbit superiority with your correctly equipped ships.
To balance this we could always have another unit, say air defence unit, that is able to shoot at ships once they are in low orbit with strength tied to say your laser tech. These would be like PDCs but unlike them you could not target them specifically - representing the ability to disguise them / move them about.
-
For orbital bombardment maybe a better way of doing it is to reflect the lasers in the attack strength of the troops you are using on the ground. This then represents the ability of low orbit ships to support troops with fire missions on identified hostile troops without giving them a mechanic of mass destruction. I also prefer the idea that orbital laser systems are doing precision damage rather than wide spread damage.
As mentioned by another poster before you could also require the use of visible light lasers with a corresponding low range that makes them of limited use in ship to ship combat and gives another design decision.
To me this strikes a good balance between simple world destruction and reflecting the tactical advantage of gaining low orbit superiority with your correctly equipped ships.
To balance this we could always have another unit, say air defence unit, that is able to shoot at ships once they are in low orbit with strength tied to say your laser tech. These would be like PDCs but unlike them you could not target them specifically - representing the ability to disguise them / move them about.
Could require ships to have an order of "Enter low orbit" or something to that effect. But instead of adding a new unit, maybe making ships in low orbit attackable by AST or HVA units. Or even go the other way. INF and GAR can attack low orbit ships on the premise they use long range weapons as opposed to the AST/HVA heavier, shorter range weapons.
-
That's a lot more of an open question then you make it out to be. For example, what kind of infantry battalion?
Which is why I used Garrison Bn as my example. Such units would likely be classified as light infantry or motorized infantry if we think of NATO terms and a WW2 era armoured division could defeat it, if with nothing else then through artillery. Whereas a LTA has no chance of beating a GAR in Aurora.
-
I'd like to create naming rules for things like SY. Instead of Naval Yard 1, 2, 3, etc. have an option to use the colony/planet name as a basis. So Mars Yards 1, or Alpha Centauri A III Yards 2.
The real world yard names are nice, but really only work for an Earth-based empire.
-
For orbital bombardment maybe a better way of doing it is to reflect the lasers in the attack strength of the troops you are using on the ground. This then represents the ability of low orbit ships to support troops with fire missions on identified hostile troops without giving them a mechanic of mass destruction. I also prefer the idea that orbital laser systems are doing precision damage rather than wide spread damage.
As mentioned by another poster before you could also require the use of visible light lasers with a corresponding low range that makes them of limited use in ship to ship combat and gives another design decision.
To me this strikes a good balance between simple world destruction and reflecting the tactical advantage of gaining low orbit superiority with your correctly equipped ships.
To balance this we could always have another unit, say air defence unit, that is able to shoot at ships once they are in low orbit with strength tied to say your laser tech. These would be like PDCs but unlike them you could not target them specifically - representing the ability to disguise them / move them about.
I mentioned something like this at the start of this thread (and obviously think it's a good idea). However, TheDeadlyShoe might take offense.
And yes, a WWII armored division could beat an infantry battalion by dumping artillery on them. Maybe. At some point, artillery really doesn't do much. If the battalion is well dug-in, they can by and large ride it out. They would likely have attached artillery of their own. And modern counterbattery fire is way better then that of WWII.
-
::)
Passive aggressive sniping rather than a discussion of ideas. Nice. :p
I like striking starships with ground units; but any implementation of that (or of other ground units) ought to be consistent with existing gameplay. Ideally, it also ought to be elegant without overlapping with existing mechanics and with a minimum of arbitrariness.
Which is why I used Garrison Bn as my example. Such units would likely be classified as light infantry or motorized infantry if we think of NATO terms and a WW2 era armoured division could defeat it, if with nothing else then through artillery. Whereas a LTA has no chance of beating a GAR in Aurora.
Part of the problem with making such a comparison is that a ww2 division cannot possibly exist in a vacuum; it needs a massive logistics tail and is a relatively clumsy beast. TN units would likely be far more mobile and nigh-impossible to pin down; essentially able to strike such a formation at will with massive local superiority.
-
::)
Passive aggressive sniping rather than a discussion of ideas. Nice. :p
I like striking starships with ground units; but any implementation of that (or of other ground units) ought to be consistent with existing gameplay. Ideally, it also ought to be elegant without overlapping with existing mechanics and with a minimum of arbitrariness.
My apologies, as I think we were miscommunicating. I was suggesting a means of shooting at starships using ground units, mostly as a counter to allowing orbital beam support. I'm not sure how you interpreted that. If that is how you interpreted my intent, and you still find it nonsensical, I'm not sure what to say.
-
Well, I apologize for being snippy. This whole thread has been frustrating because my posts keep failing and not recovering, even in chrome. ;_;
I interepreted bombardment immunity as being VS existing bombardment mechanics, ie missiles. Which just seemed really weird to me. I still think such a bombardment immunity would be arbitrary, and any beam installation or missile installation would be (given starship/PDC standards) heavy enough to find and destroy.
@Steve - I take you will be revising NPR ship designs accordingly with the new tech - if you take a look at those, could you add more variation in their speed doctrine and armor. It would be interesting to have heavily armored and slow NPRs, i.e. 20-25% engine space and far more armor layers. Or weapons!
-
Some mechanic that tells you how much characters you can put into a field or how deep can your naval organization be (I spent 1 hour of assigning parasites to branches only to have them cut off when I moved the parent branch one node deeper (and is organization really spelled that way, the z looks strange)) (And now I deleted my carrierfleet instead of removing a branch :o)
And I would like being able to group all ship classes in squadrons (esp. FACs)
-
(and is organization really spelled that way, the z looks strange)
Oxford spelling (or Oxford English Dictionary spelling) is the spelling used by Oxford University Press. It can be recognized for its use, as in American English, of the suffix -ize instead of -ise. For instance, organization, privatize and recognizable are used instead of organisation, privatise and recognisable. The spelling is favoured on etymological grounds, in that -ize corresponds more closely to the Greek root, -izo, of most -ize verbs.
In the last few decades, the suffix -ise has become the more common spelling in the UK. Many regard -ize as American English, though it has been in use in England since the 16th century.
-
Not sure if this has been suggested before...
How about expanding the Tractor Beam techs with some miniaturization?
The first level costs 5,000 RP and gives you your basic, 10 HS Tractor Beam.
The next level costs 10,000 RP and reduces the size by 3 HS, to 7 HS.
The next level costs 20,000 RP and reduces the size by 2 HS, to 5 HS.
The next level costs 40,000 RP and reduces the size by 1 HS, to 4 HS.
The next level costs 80,000 RP and reduces the size by 1 HS, to 3 HS.
The next level costs 160,000 RP and reduces the size by 1 HS, to 2 HS.
The last level costs 320,000 RP and reduces the size by 1 HS, to 1 HS.
-
Not sure if this has been suggested before...
How about expanding the Tractor Beam techs with some miniaturization?
The first level costs 5,000 RP and gives you your basic, 10 HS Tractor Beam.
The next level costs 10,000 RP and reduces the size by 3 HS, to 7 HS.
The next level costs 20,000 RP and reduces the size by 2 HS, to 5 HS.
The next level costs 40,000 RP and reduces the size by 1 HS, to 4 HS.
The next level costs 80,000 RP and reduces the size by 1 HS, to 3 HS.
The next level costs 160,000 RP and reduces the size by 1 HS, to 2 HS.
The last level costs 320,000 RP and reduces the size by 1 HS, to 1 HS.
I'd prefer to see this sort of thing combined with an expansion of the use of tractor tech-- longer range beam weapons that can act to switch off engines. Deployment of such a weapon could take ships and cut their speed in half-- plenty slow to be closed on and annhilated by short range beam weaponry.
-
Regarding the Orbital bombardment stuff, I made a pretty extensive suggestion (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,2559.0.html) about that about two years ago, which was immediately shot down by various forum members for the unfounded fear of advertising GFFP; When i actually just wanted to make things there more interesting.
I suppose I can wait till NA, still, an advancement in that respect would be nice.
I suppose till a ground combat overhaul, it's not going to happen, though...
PS: If anyone were to read that topic, it has some extrmely large letters in there, thanks to a formatting difference from then to today.
-
Ground combat does need a good overhaul.
I think the first task and easiest would be a supply factor for troops. This means a new design on ships perhaps for the role or using existing supply vessels, since they are going into combat zones.
The second task is to create a bit more variety in the things that can be achieved with troops. A raid on a PDC, defensive operations outside the colony (this might be a less defensive bonus but no damage to the colony), stealth mode on pdc, basicly unseen until it wants to revel itself, great for opening up on oribted vessels that have though its knocked out all planetary defences.
The third task is to add a little more paper rock scissors to the troops, a TAOW game style would be great but impracticable in the time to code, so atleast some minor changes such as mbl infantry has more defence against armour, armour has more ability against assault, assault has more attack against mbl inf. Or what ever you see fit, this might change atleast some loadout changes instead of marines on top of marines.
-
I would like to be able to destroy more then one missle at a time without having to destroy all of the missles in the system....here is the scenario i have run into a few times.
I'm in a system with some baddies that are a higher tech then me. They shoot very fast missles/PT's at me and my missle def responds, shooting its size 1 missles. As they get close some hit and some miss...but others miss and start a stern chase that they can't win as they are slower then the incoming missles/PTs. Now my missle def ships won't fire more missles as they still have missles out, targeted on the incoming, even though they will never catch them. So now i have to go and self-explode all the missles that are in this situation one at a time...and that tends to be alot...and a lot of time needed.
If there was a way to highlight/select more then one at a time it would be very helpful.
-Five
-
There is a solution for this: Design faster missiles. :)
I agree, that would be extremely tedious to have to do cleanup rounds like that. The option to grenade an entire missile salvo should be easy to implement and save a lot of repetitious button mashing.
-
Ground combat does need a good overhaul.
I think the first task and easiest would be a supply factor for troops. This means a new design on ships perhaps for the role or using existing supply vessels, since they are going into combat zones.
The second task is to create a bit more variety in the things that can be achieved with troops. A raid on a PDC, defensive operations outside the colony (this might be a less defensive bonus but no damage to the colony), stealth mode on pdc, basicly unseen until it wants to revel itself, great for opening up on oribted vessels that have though its knocked out all planetary defences.
Introduction of a Special Forces Battalion would be good. Enable them to carry out raids to destroy Factories/Mines/infrastructure ect .... or use them as expensive infantry/marines when you are running low on troops
-
special forces could be a good addition to game to cause damage - suiciding robot combat drones or some such thing
-
special forces +1
However without a real stealth craft to get them planet side without destruction I doubt it would be possible. Perhaps some AI code around civilian transponders and not destroying them unless an enemy.
If not special forces used in this tactic maybe have insurgency on captured planets for a while which only special forces can take out. Or special forces survive a colony loss and act as insurgents.
-
insurgents could act as a disruption tactic until u can take the planet back
-
Not sure it is something you want to address or not but i have noticed that my beam ships take alot longer to build then all other ships. I build them all the same tonnage with the same shields/armor/engines. But my ships with lasers take years longer to complete then my missle ships or command(sensor) ships. Seems a bit rough for those wanting to play beam, or just those using them for it to be years longer(in my case) for the same ton ship to be built...i get a bit longer as a laser is more complex then a missle launcher, but it is years longer then my sensor ship too.
-Five
-
Not sure it is something you want to address or not but i have noticed that my beam ships take alot longer to build then all other ships. I build them all the same tonnage with the same shields/armor/engines. But my ships with lasers take years longer to complete then my missle ships or command(sensor) ships. Seems a bit rough for those wanting to play beam, or just those using them for it to be years longer(in my case) for the same ton ship to be built...i get a bit longer as a laser is more complex then a missle launcher, but it is years longer then my sensor ship too.
-Five
Build time is based on cost rather than size. Are the beam ships more expensive than the missile ships?
Steve
-
Not sure it is something you want to address or not but i have noticed that my beam ships take alot longer to build then all other ships. I build them all the same tonnage with the same shields/armor/engines. But my ships with lasers take years longer to complete then my missle ships or command(sensor) ships. Seems a bit rough for those wanting to play beam, or just those using them for it to be years longer(in my case) for the same ton ship to be built...i get a bit longer as a laser is more complex then a missle launcher, but it is years longer then my sensor ship too.
-Five
You can get around the long build time by using your planetary factory to build important parts of a ship. With some carefull planning I have been able to make a 60,000 ton pure meson ship in 9 months. I used my industry to build the engines, fire control, weapons, ecm/eccm. I did not build the active or passive sensors ahead of time, mostly as they were there as backups to the dedicated sensor ship and were not all that expensive. For my dedicated sensor ships (any sensor over 20 hull spaces actually) I do build those with my industry. I usually find that having about 10% of the planetary industry on your homeworld building ship parts will cut the build time in half or roughly. Hope this helps
Brian
-
I am trying to rebuild my Empire, almost from scratch since I dont have any shipyard in the surviving system I had to cheat a bit by using a freighter and converting it to an auxillary cruiser, sporting some 600 box launchers welded into my cargo bays. There should be some kind of building capacity on planets that dont have ship yards... Not sure how much, but in my game we are using shuttles to get eveything into space and then human labour to transform my ship into a warship, almost a warship.
-
i would say the data sets for manual parts needs to be brought in line with planetary factories. Or reduced the other way but i guess its up to steve at some point to recodeify it
-
I searched through the big suggestion thread but couldn't find anything similar to this:
For the class design screen, could you make the class drop-down list a bit bigger? With only 8 slots, I find myself scrolling through it a lot. As well, could you auto-tag the class names with the hull type acronym? That way, I can use creative names rather than "Missile Frigate Mk 1". It would help in finding if I have a class or seeing at a glance which name is which class, and would let us know what acronym goes to each hull type before we build it. We already have something similar for shipyards and fleet information, so extending it to the class design screen seems logical.
-
I searched through the big suggestion thread but couldn't find anything similar to this:
For the class design screen, could you make the class drop-down list a bit bigger? With only 8 slots, I find myself scrolling through it a lot. As well, could you auto-tag the class names with the hull type acronym? That way, I can use creative names rather than "Missile Frigate Mk 1". It would help in finding if I have a class or seeing at a glance which name is which class, and would let us know what acronym goes to each hull type before we build it. We already have something similar for shipyards and fleet information, so extending it to the class design screen seems logical.
You can create a hull type which does pretty much what you want I think. Or you can use existing hull types. The dropdown is next to the class dropdown.
Instead of classing the vessel as a frigate, you can class it as a missile frigate and give it a designation of FFG.
-
You can create a hull type which does pretty much what you want I think. Or you can use existing hull types. The dropdown is next to the class dropdown.
Instead of classing the vessel as a frigate, you can class it as a missile frigate and give it a designation of FFG.
I understand how to change the hull type classification. I guess my request was unclear; when using the drop-down menu to select the actual class, it should display the previously selected hull classification in that same menu. So rather than it saying "Agamemnon", it should be "FFG Agamemnon" (or whatever), similar to selecting a class with a shipyard. That way you can see the class of the ship before you actually select it, making selection and interpreting faster and easier if you don't remember what everything is without going through every class. It would also have the side benefit of displaying the hull classification shorthand without going to a different screen.
-
I understand how to change the hull type classification. I guess my request was unclear; when using the drop-down menu to select the actual class, it should display the previously selected hull classification in that same menu. So rather than it saying "Agamemnon", it should be "FFG Agamemnon" (or whatever), similar to selecting a class with a shipyard. That way you can see the class of the ship before you actually select it, making selection and interpreting faster and easier if you don't remember what everything is without going through every class. It would also have the side benefit of displaying the hull classification shorthand without going to a different screen.
essentially a small streamlining of the UI i get what u mean. That said when u get new technology and select at game startup ( AI selects ship designs and u get the intial designs) if u get new tech does it upgrade these designs ?
-
essentially a small streamlining of the UI i get what u mean. That said when u get new technology and select at game startup ( AI selects ship designs and u get the intial designs) if u get new tech does it upgrade these designs ?
No. Any upgrading is left to the player.
-
are there any new elements or ideas we can get steve or suggest to steve going forward into game
-
Would it be possible to add a conditional order to a Task Group / vessel which orders them to approach a target up to a specific distance and then request further orders. For instance if one deduces that a particular planet or moon might contain hostile elements then a slow approach terminating at a specific distance being the limit of one's sensors might prevent the sudden appearance of ASM missiles and the destruction of valuable ships.
At present the only way seems to be by using waypoints which can be inaccurate.
DavidR
-
You can give a task group a command to orbit at a given distance, which is very near to what you are asking. When the group completes that command you have a time stop and are given a notice that the orders were completed. This would allow you to administer new orders as needed.
-
Been thinking about multi-race starts, on one planet, and what it always results in.
Given a nuclear war, it will now pretty much always end in the extinction of one side.
Given that there's a lot of media coverage of any kind, be it books, essays, films, games, that depict survival in such an environment, be it by means of bunkers or old subway tubes, shouldn't that be possible in Aurora as well?
I think this could be eased by having a "population-dependent infrastructure", that is only slowly destroyed by orbital attacks (10%, for example), not seen on sensors, and will allow survival of a small amount of populace, maybe without pop growth.
This could work together with a base production that automatically constructs conventional industry if there is significant unemployment.
Suggested figures:
PD Infrastructure Min would be 10% of the required infrastructure at colony cost 1.5
PD Infrastructure Max would be 10% of the required infrastructure at colony cost 2
Complicated:
IF (10%+ unemployed) OR (Construction < )
Generate (100+SQRT(Pop in millions*10))*MP Construction.
IF (PD Infrastructure < PDI Min, produce PDI), ELSE (Produce Conventional Industry)
Simplified:
Every Million of unemployed Population counts as ONE Conventional Industry, modified by Colony Cost. Capped at 10% of total populace.
Will automatically produce PD Infrastructure if below PDI Max.
This means that uninhabitable worlds have a lower base production, and thus produce Infrastructure significantly slower. It also means that a populace devastated by a nuclear strike can, albeit slowly, recover.
The system doesn't really help building fresh colonies, unless on perfectly habitable worlds.
-
I would like to suggest to move the center of the map closer to the bottom right corner of the window. It will improve playability in small size window.
-
It would be cool to have a small 'Emergency Jump Drive' that allows a ship to jump using a much smaller jump drive than normal, but no squadron jump and 0k jump radius. However, it would consume a large amount of fuel and be 'burnt out' after a single use, and require a overhaul to function a second time.
-
@ Unlimited - I think, but I'm not sure, that a world's civilian infrastructure production already goes to its own needs if it needs infrastructure.
*****
After I've explored a good number of systems, it becomes very difficult to keep track of what systems have salvageable wrecks in them. It would be nice if there were some sort of highlight for this. Currently I highlight such systems as having "Alien TGs", but this is fallible.
-
or mark it as wreck abc in the got menu
-
Another idea is recently in science journals there has been some talk of exosolar planets that may not have a host star. This could be for aurora as well as TN and aurora 2. And that if they get close to another star that the gravity could capture new planets and become part of the solar system ( same goes for newly discovered comets) given that mineral supplies are fixed in game is there a way for a rarish event for planets and perhaps tempoary comets to enter a solar system ( with comets they could be harvested in some way for minerals) this could be a way for new planets and or new mineral sources to be intorudced into a solar system. Either as a new permanent body or a tempoary event.
Well just an idea that might wanna play with
-
Another request where i give ship orders is it possible to move down the rewind maintence under load colonists
So under load colonists would it be possible to put load infustrucutre then unload colonists and unload infustructure and then the rest of the list a lot of orders i give are to move in joint fleets colonists and infustructure at the same time and it slows things down having to scroll down the list. Just a small UI change that should save a lot of furstruation and time
-
@ Unlimited - I think, but I'm not sure, that a world's civilian infrastructure production already goes to its own needs if it needs infrastructure.
Sure they do, but then it's transported off to some other world.
What I want to simulate is subways, public buildings, stuff that you still need on a perfectly habitable world, and that can not be destroyed completely by a few nukes.
Something that gives an actual impression that people still need something after the terraforming is done.
-
another suggestion is we have 5 day turn cycles and 30 day turn cycles is it possible to introduce a 10 or a 15 day cycle also
-
Maybe slidebar? And I think it will save a lot of space
-
im on a laptop ive raised the issues as far as the rename, new group creation within the task force screen for more sub groups cant drag the screen up and access that bottom row which is a bit of a pain it sits just off the screen so perhaps an option via the task force organisation to rename, delete and add groups that way
Slidebar is also a good idea
-
GUI suggestion: body grouping or sorting rule for population window. It's hard to navigate if you have several species\modifications on the body.
-
1) The ability to delete multiple empty task groups would be helpful, especially during the start of the soviet campaign.
2) Having the ability to organize and combine fighter task groups together, based on what squadron the fighter is in. Maybe an assume formation button?
3) Being able to destroy constructed jump gates would be nice. Maybe make jump gates that are generated and built via the "All jump points have jump gates" invulnerable?
4) Filter out task groups based off which task force you have selected.
5) Have ground units assigned to task forces, and being able to move armies through civilian contractors (like cargo and colony ships).
6) Have something above task force level, perhaps branch or section? Similar to US Army and US Marine Corps separation.
-
Hello, I think this likely has been suggested before and may even be a mechanic already, If so i apologize but would it be possible to set planets too posses a biosphere. Most planets already have hydrospheres and tectonics so it doesn't seem too be too much of a leap to develop biospheres on planets though the biospheres would be limited by:
1) liquid water, no life can exist without water so liquid water or ice sheet would be neccesary for the planet to sustain life.
2) the biospheres could make terraforming more interesting as you'd need to change the local flora and fauna to make it easier to sustain life, though seperate ecosystems wouldn't be too much of a leap and affect colonisation over much, say if a planet has hostile fauna which uses a different substance than cellulose for plants itd be more difficult for colonisation as the colonists would need to handle the aggresive wildlife as well as find a way to metabolize the plants. Though this would cause changes to other mechanis so it need not be useful.
3) temperature, covered by liquid water, too hot and nothing can live, ditto too cold.
This is just a question as i've been thinking about what it'd be like for colonists to set up on a planet without having to handle native life if the planet isn't a barren rock.
The idea is to have multiple levels of biosphere such as cellular: just developed, earth-like, developed enough to have complex lifeforms, hostile: death worlds containing aggresive plants or animals that are a threat to the colonists.
-
I'd love a "convert all" button for Low Tech infantry. If you have a reasonably large starting pop, converting every single low tech infantry division into cadres individually is a real pain.
-
I'd love a "convert all" button for Low Tech infantry. If you have a reasonably large starting pop, converting every single low tech infantry division into cadres individually is a real pain.
simple and elegant
-
Hello, I think this likely has been suggested before and may even be a mechanic already, If so i apologize but would it be possible to set planets too posses a biosphere. Most planets already have hydrospheres and tectonics so it doesn't seem too be too much of a leap to develop biospheres on planets though the biospheres would be limited by:
1) liquid water, no life can exist without water so liquid water or ice sheet would be neccesary for the planet to sustain life.
2) the biospheres could make terraforming more interesting as you'd need to change the local flora and fauna to make it easier to sustain life, though seperate ecosystems wouldn't be too much of a leap and affect colonisation over much, say if a planet has hostile fauna which uses a different substance than cellulose for plants itd be more difficult for colonisation as the colonists would need to handle the aggresive wildlife as well as find a way to metabolize the plants. Though this would cause changes to other mechanis so it need not be useful.
3) temperature, covered by liquid water, too hot and nothing can live, ditto too cold.
This is just a question as i've been thinking about what it'd be like for colonists to set up on a planet without having to handle native life if the planet isn't a barren rock.
The idea is to have multiple levels of biosphere such as cellular: just developed, earth-like, developed enough to have complex lifeforms, hostile: death worlds containing aggresive plants or animals that are a threat to the colonists.
More lethal worlds (to your species) could cause more casualties in ground combat, perhaps.
-
And if the Death World is hostile enough that your colonists have slower growth (or even negative), I'm totally doing a cost/benefit analysis that will invariably point in favour of removing the local biosphere.
Hi, man-eating plant, I have a nuclear warhead I just need to show you...
You can also terraform flourine into the atmosphere. XD
-
ground intolerances killing off troops is a good idea unless u have advanced infantry or automated robot brigades or mechwarrior type units
-
Which we can expect at the tech level projected.
Wouldn't do much, if the atmosphere is hostile, an armor breach is fatal instead of just a hindrance.
If the biosphere doesn't like you, logistics will be impaired instead.
We had a long discussion about that a long way back (well, ok, a year or maybe two) and it essentially boiled down to some people liking the idea while otehrs didn't.
It'd be nice to have the option, I guess.
-
I'd like tech to make active sensors harder to detect, or at least harder to quantify.
Modern day AESA and PESA systems make detection harder for the enemy, while also masking it's own capabilities.
I don't like RPing a multifaction start because turning on an active sensor anywhere near Earth will show the other players who see it what the sensor can and cannot see instantly.
Maybe create a decryption ship component similar to modern COMSEC to determine what resolution, power, range and capabilities the enemy has.
-
I believe the passive component (EM sensors) scales the sensor strength without scaling the emissions power. Though I'm not completely sure. But, it doesn't increase the sensor cost either, so it's pretty sweet.
-
I'd like to see additional types of countermeasures in the coming versions. A ship could have a smaller version of ECM that only provided protection for itself, or, following a tech similar to jump squadron size, could have much bigger equipment that could provide ECM for an entire task force.
-
One thing I always wanted was to link infrastructure/auto mining/ground surveying and ground forces landing to current research armour and or shields.
And what I mean by that is you cannot survey a melting hot planet like mercury until you have a sufficient ability to withstand those temperatures. The same with very cold planets. As your technology grows some of those planets become unlocked for exploration via the ground.
-
One thing I always wanted was to link infrastructure/auto mining/ground surveying and ground forces landing to current research armour and or shields.
And what I mean by that is you cannot survey a melting hot planet like mercury until you have a sufficient ability to withstand those temperatures. The same with very cold planets. As your technology grows some of those planets become unlocked for exploration via the ground.
Well technically we have the materials to do that now, they are just heavy, expensive or rare to ship to mercury. Our nuclear fusion reactors can reach temperatures many times higher than the surface of the sun and not melt. Trans-newtonian materials are suppose to be super metals, so that pretty much covers the withstanding temperatures.
-
Well technically we have the materials to do that now, they are just heavy, expensive or rare to ship to mercury. Our nuclear fusion reactors can reach temperatures many times higher than the surface of the sun and not melt. Trans-newtonian materials are suppose to be super metals, so that pretty much covers the withstanding temperatures.
And even nowadays astronauts can space-walk in the very low (close to absolute-zero?) temperatures of space.
-
Not really the same thing as astronauts only have to worry about radiated heat lose.
-
For a non-living material, space temperature is essentially a non-entity.
Warmth is energy, cold just a lack there of.
Cold temperatures are completely harmless unless you happen to be on of the poor living beings that is bound to a specific base temperature.
Hot temperatures or high pressure will not endanger materials themselves, though, but their structure, their ability to work.
I can probably agree that one should not be able to survey a venusian world that easily with a team, maybe take longer dependent on the root of the colony cost; But a base survey from orbit should be possible still.
-
Not really the same thing as astronauts only have to worry about radiated heat lose.
I mean about his point of planets being "too cold".
-
he ment in space is little matter which is able to drain youre heat - where should the heat(energy) go in space where is no or very little matter - at a planet otherwise there is alot of matter around draining youre heat
-
he ment in space is little matter which is able to drain youre heat - where should the heat(energy) go in space where is no or very little matter - at a planet otherwise there is alot of matter around draining youre heat
Oh, makes sense.
-
Agreeably does, if a survey team has to swim through a sea of liquid gas, it might pose a problem.
But anything till ~100-150° Kelvin should be bearable with the kind of equipment projected.
Essentially, even low level infantry is depicted as having power armor, or should be given the massive difference to conventional troops.
I think that should change, but it's not up to me.
-
5.7 launch day?
Steve am waitn for this upgrade:DD
-
I think my points were explained by others, but a cold planet has just as much impact as a hot planet, especially when it comes to long term machinery use. E.G. Automated mining.
I think survey is also harder as we are talking months in a hostile unstable environment, especially with hot planets. Unlike space you do not have Teutonic plates shifting etc. I understand your point about trans newton materials, however i think it would add to the scientific tree, more so then detract.
-
i would like to add here, that the geo survey on the planet is going to be less and less interresting, as the game progresses.
the team usualy finds small numbers of minerals, while you settle for planets with millions of minerals.
so if it is not access increase - the gain of the geo survey is very low - less then 1% minerals total?
so maybe we should go with a tech, which increases/decresses the speed of geo surveys. maybe the chance of an access increase.
to make this matter, maybe the access of minerals could be in general lower - which makes the geo survey on the planet neccessary to increase the access.
to make this more vialbe planets could be generated with 2 access numbers for each mineral - one is the first find without a geo survey on the planet, and the 2. with geo survey on the planet.
lets say the planet was created with 10m duranium with an access of 0.2 for space geo survey, which is set to go up to 0.5 with a planet survey.(this planet would be usualy 0.5 access - but now needs geo survey on the planet to get usefull)
i would say make this an addition to the geo survey on the planets - so they can still find new minerals and increase the access even higher then said above.
the idear is not to make everything mineral richer - but to make the geo survey on planets neccessary to make planets usefull.
-
i thought about it a little more
maybe all minerals could be set to 0.05 or 0.1 access with an orbital survey and require a ground survey for better access
the gound survey would be in two parts then
1. to increase access(allways works to present values)
2. the old ground survey
research into ground geo survey would be importand to speed this process up then.
problems:
you need more good officers in survey
you need to research ground geo survey - or how ever it will be called
-
I put this in the change log discussion thread, figure it might fit better here...
It reminded me of something that's bugged me for a while, though: The promotion scores for ground officers. I feel like ground combat bonus gives way too much of a promotion score bonus compared to ground training. After all, ground training is a skill more important to higher officers than the combat bonus. Any chance you could change it so that ground combat bonus gives less of a promotion score boost and ground training gives more?
-
I like that idea with the need for ground surveying. I think Orbital survey should only pick up two of the main minerals, as it basing it data on rock formations / gases etc with sensors.
However I see a ground survey like drilling cores and chemical analysis being able nut down the best access points etc. Add this with the max and min temperature for survey and automated machinery and you have a much deeper and more meaning geological/mining platform.
Considering this seems to be a very important and strategic point of the game it would be very beneficial.
-
hmm if the orbital survey does not pick up all minerals, it gets very complicated to pick potential mining colonies.
the ground survey is not realy fast atm - ok there is a change comming, but who knows, how it will be?
but if you would need to ground survey each planet/moon for specivic mineral values, you would be surveying with 0% survey ppl, because you just run out of usefull ones.(actualy for me only the 30% survey guys are actualy usefull) in additon i think about the game flow a little, and you would realy spend alot of time sending out survey teams to each planet, and make all of thouse colonies that you can actualy ground survey them.
i think it would be enough, to have the need to ground survey mineral rich planets, like setting all access values low without ground survey.
if the ground survey can be speedup with research, it could make sence to slow it down again, a little maybe with the planetary suitability value. but it gets complicated with asteroids? or just use a set value there?
-
I think this needlessly complicates things.
What Steve could do, however, is reduce base minerals, and then increase the chance that teams find something; Maybe slightly raise the chance if a body already contains minerals.
-
hmm i think a mining colony or operation on an asteroid or comet should be worth/need a geo survey team.
if huge mining does not need geo survey teams or it is not worth the time deploying them, we can remove geo survey teams.
geo survey teams are a "weak" part in the game atm - they are nice at the home planet, but as soon as you leave to other systems, they loose value alot - like i said you get less then 1% more minerals for a good mining planet pick.
with luck some access increase.
i think thouse geo survey teams are a nice part of the game, but they need theire importance.
-
I can rarely be bothered with geosurvey teams as they add to the micromanagement , so changing things to make them compulsory (to find decent minerals) would be a bad thing as it imposes micromanagement on players
-
you actualy make my point.
you call geo survey teams micromanagement. so i would say make geo survey usefull/needed, or take it out of the game.
because it just does not matter alot atm.
im sure there are several different ways, to make geo survey teams more then micromanagment for mining planets.
my goal would be to make it neccesary to ground geo survey mining planets, or on rich planets which are interresting as mining planets.
not to ground survey every planet in each system.
-
how about geo survey fighters or drones
-
how about geo survey fighters or drones
Now you can create geosurvey fighters and drones. You can create survey missiles, if you add some geosurvey sensors. . .
-
I designed a geoship with lots of buoys, just dropped them on each moon and planet and moved on. Fastest and most cost effective way to survey a system. However these are still orbital surveys.
As for micromanagement, I laughed this is aurora not command and conquer. But I agree micromanagement needs to be worth it, and I would like more non combat ways of empire management. Combat is only part of the fun in this game, creating an empire it a reward in itself.
-
I've been thinking about missiles and the 'optimal warhead size' and 'offensive AMM' problems. A simple solution that would be easy to implement (maybe less simple to balance, but whatever) would be to make all armour somewhat like missile armour, eg. have a chance to be destroyed when hit. To compensate armour would have to be made bigger, of course.
To clarify, armour would still have boxes as they do now, but each box is no longer outright destroyed by 1 damage. Instead, every point of damage, when it is assigned to a box of armour, results in a check to determine whether the armour is destroyed or not. The probability of destruction would depend on how much damage still needs to be assigned.
For example, size 4 warhead missile hits a ship. First point of damage is assigned, armor has 1/(4+1) chance of surviving (thats 20%). Armor pops. The next point of damage is assigned on the next box which prompts another check. Armor has a 1/(3+1) chance to survive (25%). Armor gets lucky and survives. The third point of damage is assigned to that same box of armour and it checks again: chance of survival = 1/(2+1) = 33%. Continue this way until all damage has been assigned.
Now AMM's have only a 50% chance (that number can be changed by messing with that +1) to do any damage and there is no 'optimal' missile size to assure punching through two layers of armour. The same would hold for beam weapons, but most would be unaffected. Change of constant would be enough to fix the others.
Basically: Each point of damage has a 1/(#pts still to be assigned + constant) chance of not destroying a box of armour.
-
More realistic terraforming
I have been thinking about this when reading wikipedia about terraforming :) I think it would be more realistic that planet should only be fully colonizable (cost 0) if they have a working magnetic field (which generally imply tectonic).
Recently started a game where I created my own race of methane breather on a moon orbiting a gas giant. But when exploring I found dozen of cold moon, very low gravity, no magnetic field, no tectonic, low atmosphere that were quite easy to colonize. Normally giant gases planet emits a lot of radiation so colonizing all those moons so easily suddenly took all the fun out of the game.
I don't like the idea of adding gases from nowhere. Matters in a general way just don’t appear like that. Current real life ideas propose bombarding the planet with asteroid as most of them have HUGHE amount of water and oxygen (or other gases). When enough of them are on the planet, terraforming installation could change materials into the different gases needed. We could also take the gases into liquid form from other planet and mass-drive it to the desired destination. Or get them from other atmosphere like for fuel.
Removing gases is not a problem in my mind as we can consider that the ship blows it away in space like the solar wind does at a smaller rate.
Anti greenhouse gases seems weird to me also. We could instead have the option to install solar shade at the Lagrange point. Thickness or size of the shade could alter different amount of luminosity received and so the albedo. In the same way it could be a solar mirror to increase albedo for heating the planet.
It would also make it a strategic installation to defend against enemy and terraforming would be a solar-system-wide project. Currently I don't even bother with infrastructure anymore. I just build a few massive terraforming ships and terraform everything interesting I find. Mars can be done in a few years, even at low tech and there are many planets like mars. Otherwise I send automated mines and mass driver.
-
Fixe position of star system
This is planned in Newtonian Aurora, but I would love it also in standard aurora! What I don't like with the current jump point system is that there is no “front line”. It all comes to battling on a straight line on one single choke point (a jump point). And jump points are just too easy to defend. You just need a Jump Defense Base with a few plasma carronade and big maintenance spares to crush anything that comes through for a lonnng time...
My idea is that it could work in the current mechanic system (Trans-Newtonian mechanic). The ships would need to get out of the gravity well and aim toward the targeted solar system, then activate its jump drive and instantly appear in the new system as it would with a normal jump point.
To avoid going too easily to far away solar system, many nice idea have been propose in the Newtonian Aurora thread but here are the ones I like. The jump distance could simply be limited by a tech line of the jump drive. Otherwise it could be that the longer the jump, the more dangerous it is to "miss" the system or appear in the next one in line with the deviation vector. Or the longer the jump, the more the ship is blinded when reappearing. Or a combination of all that.
When jump ships would aim at the star (the bigger the star the easier) so from far away wherever you jump from the gravity well, you would appear in the approximately same zone. So it would still be easy to deduce where to defend a system based on nearby unsecure solar system, but not as easy as a simple plasma carronade station on one single point.
This would also make nearby system strategically important to defend and the knowledge of where may the enemy come from as much important. With listening outpost spy ships and all.
It would be necessary to analyze the gravitational field of a star to aim it correctly or gain bonus to accuracy when jumping to it. So gravitational survey vessel would still be around. And it would still be possible to build jump gate between systems to avoid the need of jump drive. There could actually still be jump point connecting nearby system as it is currently the case and jump gate could be built on them in order to set a network for our empire. The advantage of jump gate is that they would be safe, no side effect, no maximum tonnage and they would be in the inner system (as it currently is).
And all this in a 2D Galaxy would be perfectly fine (no need for 3D). To avoid showing off to much system from start we could go with a maximum distant view of a few parsec, thus necessitating to explore quite far away to "see" more system. This could be represent the fact that the farthest a system is the harder it is to see it and so on the edge we would only see the brighter/massive star fading with distance.
If all this is too complicated, would it at least be possible to have a fix star position galaxy, where we see all star and we have to find jump point normally? I like loop in jump point so there is multiple path possible to almost all system.
-
Better Fire Control Management
The idea is to program more precisely attack and defense setting through parameters of the FC.
Attack
For example, give the order for the missiles to go at only a certain slow speed and full speed for the final part of the distance, as to avoid detection and make it more surprising. The parameter for the salvo could be “60% at launch, 100% speed at 5million km from the target”. Like this it would also be possible to arrange salvo so they would all arrive at the same time at a given distance making it more difficult for the defenses to shoot them. Also I would love to give the order for my FC to change between missiles automatically. Like “first shoot 3 normal salvo, then one EM salvo, then one armor salvo and do this in a cycle”. Like for ship orders maybe.
Defense
Give the possibility to tell a fire control how many time it should shoot on a salvo or which kind of salvo to prioritize (if you have identify decoy or else). Basically I often have several layers of defense in my task group. AMM, Meson turrets, Gauss canon turrets, CIWS. The point of my AMM is not to shoot down ALL missiles of a salvo, but to clear it a little bit to make it easier for the next layer of defense and so on. But I would like my AMM to concentrate on the next salvo instead of wasting ammunition on missiles that are going to be shot down by my final defensive fire anyway. Also imagine your surprise once you discover that one of the salvos is armored and the single shot you asked your AMM for this salvo is not going to be enough in the end... Giving the need to rearrange quickly your defense program.
-
Beam weapon pierce side to side
Above the fact that I would find it more realistic, this would also avoid the "too easy to defend a jump point" problem mentioned in the previous post.
And jump points are just too easy to defend. You just need a Jump Defense Base with a few plasma carronade and big maintenance spares to crush anything that comes through for a lonnng time...
If I understand well once a beam pierce through armor, all remaining damage are applied to internal system. Thus with a few plasma carronade nothing can survive. That would not be the case if the beam went from one side to another.
Missile warheads
It always bugs me that nuclear explosion do such small damage to a ship hull. Instead of nuclear warhead, it could be named “conventional explosives” and it would have exactly the same effect as currently.
In the other hand, nuclear warhead would be heavier or more expansive (or whatever) but at least have huge blast like described in the Newtonian aurora system.
For this, we could make CIWS much more precise and the ability to decide at which distance from the ships the missile should detonate. This would also give a second life to laser warheads, especially if they behave like lasers (piercing through ships).
Component knowledge
Once we have knowledge of a tech, it would be nice to recognize it on an unknown contact. Like if we have ion engine, I guess it would be quite easy to recognize a nuclear pulse engine on any alien ship. There isn't much way of making a nuclear pulse engine. Like this there could be hints on tech aliens are using. The same could go for tech we don't know yet but we have recovered the components on a wreck.
-
about thouse nuclear explosions,
i dont think an explosion of an icbm of today is ment there, more like a tactical nuke,
an icbm from today would translate into a size 10-20 missile - and dealing just one dmg with thouse, will be quite difficult.
(size 20 missile = 50t, size 1 = 2.5t)
in addition, explosions are much less effective in space then on earth.
you propably heared about the idear to deflect/destroy larger meteors with icbms - which seems to be an impossible solution today - i would argue here now, that the ship armor is much stronger, then the random materials of a meteor.
maybe this wouldnt reduce the dmg of nuclear weapons enough, but if the dmg of thouse weapons is not somehow reduced, you could destroy any size ship, with a single nuclear missile.
-
Would it be possible to have a check box in Task Group Orders which could toggle off planets in the "System Location Available" menu which are being used solely by Civilian Mining Complexes ( CMC ).
If I am routing say a Cargo vessel to load minerals from my own mining / colony planets , the Planets with CMC's on them are also listed in the menu which can cause confusion. If these CMC planets could be hidden as a location it would assist with routing orders.
Or does anyone know how to hide CMC planets as a location destination ?
DavidR
PS. Reason the CMC planet is shown as a location for travel could be that the AI ( when auto assigning officers ) allocates a Planetary Governor and Planetary Garrison to the CMC planet and the planet then shows as Human for location purposes. How then to stop planet being an available destination ?
-
Would it be possible to have a check box in Task Group Orders which could toggle off planets in the "System Location Available" menu which are being used solely by Civilian Mining Complexes ( CMC ).
If I am routing say a Cargo vessel to load minerals from my own mining / colony planets , the Planets with CMC's on them are also listed in the menu which can cause confusion. If these CMC planets could be hidden as a location it would assist with routing orders.
Or does anyone know how to hide CMC planets as a location destination ?
DavidR
PS. Reason the CMC planet is shown as a location for travel could be that the AI ( when auto assigning officers ) allocates a Planetary Governor and Planetary Garrison to the CMC planet and the planet then shows as Human for location purposes. How then to stop planet being an available destination ?
As far as I know, the only officer that could be assigned to a CMC is a ground officer for the garrison. The auto-assign should not assign governors ever. The only thing I can offer to discern the CMC from a normal pop is they will always be population 0. You might also try renaming the colony to something like "Mercury - CMC". Then you'll know in the task screen for certain.
-
when you rename things - you should consinder putting the name tag in front
like "CMC mercury" this way they dont get mixed into the list, but put all together in one spot/block of the list.
same can be very helpfull with all kinds of shiptyps, and different kind of colonies
-
Erik ( and crys ) ,
Thanks - will look into renaming the CMC planets to identify them. Erik - both the player mining colonies in the same system as CMC planets all show up in the "system locations available " box as " planet name ( Pop 0.0m )-Human " so there is no quick method of identifying player mining colonies from CMC mining colonies - other than at present renaming planets for identification purposes.
DavidR
-
Ok here's my idea, you could split minerals into "surface resources", which are easily picked up by sensors.
Making asteroids all surface resources and so you don't need geological teams to scan asteroids.
And for larger planets moons/worlds there would be deeper resources which require teams to discover.
All resources should be set ahead of time so the teams are not randomly generating them, but merely discovering stuff that already exists. This would remove that silly thing about only wanting to use 140+ teams.
Perhaps orbital surveys should be able to give some indication of what exists underground after longer/more powerful surveys sensors, so you aren't just searching randomly.
Another idea would be a third layer of resources, core minerals, which would be the largest in quantities and require higher techs to access.
Currently asteroids are worthless, with quick surveying and being able to automate mining ships to mine them, they should be the next step after earth minerals runs out.
Next idea i have, mining should produce ore at various grades, which has to be smelted and refined at populated worlds with a new building perhaps. This would add bulk to mining, meaning more freighter space to move it, and be a little more realistic.
-
Currently asteroids are worthless
lolwut
The surveying mechanics are already getting an overhaul for 5.7 anyway IIRC.
-
Having hostile construction yards churning out new ships whilst you have your own fleet in orbit can be a real pain.
It would be great if combat ships in orbit could be set to blockade a planet and hence prevent materials being sent to the construction yards. This could require ongoing fuel usage to represent the need for your ships to move about to actually intercept the commercial ships.
-
two basic contributions, not really suggestions, to guide game design. I'm an amateur game designer myself, and I believe Aurora is, without question, the best free game I've ever seen. I'm going to post my two largest beefs below, but please understand that these are probably the only two things I don't like about the game.
#1) Civilian shipping is, by far, the most annoying thing in Aurora. I frequently want to launch guided missile attacks on my civilian shipping....that's how much it annoys me. Trade and commerce is usually my favorite part of strategy games (I'm a peace freak) but in Aurora, it ads very little and takes a whole heck of a lot: every system is crowded with blue dots I have absolutely no control over, and they don't seem to contribute very much. Honestly, if they all exploded, would it hurt my empire at all? Civilian shipping needs to be more fun: perhaps slightly more interactive or at least cooler to study.
#2) This is probably a pipe dream, but is there any way to make long campaigns more feasible? Aurora does not effectively simulate space operas, because you can't play a semi-large campaign that's longer than a few decades (or at least, I've had no luck). My favorite thing about playing Galciv were the games I created that lasted for a LONG time, I could piece together sweeping star epics in my head.
I realize that this is always going to be a problem with aurora, given that it is free and designed by a single human. However, I think there should be some emphasis on features which make the game faster, not just cooler. Almost all the suggestions I see seem to involve more complexity (which, lets be honest, is the reason why we play) but there are very few suggestions which involve making the game less laggy...is that doable? Here are some possibilities (sorry if they're dumb/have been planned for a future update/are already in the game and I can't find them)
-a toggle-able option that disables sensor checks, or makes them less frequent, so that players can speed things along when they're not involved in combat. This would make the game more...I guess "granular" is the term, but that's better than making it completely unplayable.
- an option to create minimal NPRs that don't go past their home system, so we can have many races in a galaxy, but things don't get too crowded and break down?
- civilian shipping by convoy, not individual ship, such that the sky isn't full of thousands of outdated models jamming things up?
-
#1) Civilian shipping is, by far, the most annoying thing in Aurora. I frequently want to launch guided missile attacks on my civilian shipping....that's how much it annoys me. Trade and commerce is usually my favorite part of strategy games (I'm a peace freak) but in Aurora, it ads very little and takes a whole heck of a lot: every system is crowded with blue dots I have absolutely no control over, and they don't seem to contribute very much. Honestly, if they all exploded, would it hurt my empire at all? Civilian shipping needs to be more fun: perhaps slightly more interactive or at least cooler to study.
Don't you use civilian contracts? Those are extremely useful in most of my games.
-
yeah, they are good for that. I'd probably like them more if they could move other things (minerals, missiles, etc.)
-
Offensive Tractoring
Gravity wave focusing enables the long-range gravitational tethering of ships. The tech line is designed to enable beam-warships to trap and tether ships outside the combat range, slowing them in much the same way that a black hole interacts with non-newtonian technology.
The technology could also be used by missile ships to play "keep away" on beam ships-- shaving their precious speed advantages.
Example: A class 1 offensive tractor would slow the target ship by 1000 km/s.
Range would have to be considered. I was thinking the 20-50 m/km range to give beam ships a middling way to project power over long ranges.
Power Requirements: I'm thinking these babies should be a huge draw on power. This would prevent people from plopping a class 10 megatractor on every ship in the fleet-- you need a big heavy tractor, plus a big heavy powerplant to run the thing continuously. No capacitors, because the weapon needs a continuous power supply.
Finally, you know you want this, because
BOARDING OPERATIONS
Nuff said.
-
Offensive Tractoring
Gravity wave focusing enables the long-range gravitational tethering of ships. The tech line is designed to enable beam-warships to trap and tether ships outside the combat range, slowing them in much the same way that a black hole interacts with non-newtonian technology.
The technology could also be used by missile ships to play "keep away" on beam ships-- shaving their precious speed advantages.
Example: A class 1 offensive tractor would slow the target ship by 1000 km/s.
Range would have to be considered. I was thinking the 20-50 m/km range to give beam ships a middling way to project power over long ranges.
Power Requirements: I'm thinking these babies should be a huge draw on power. This would prevent people from plopping a class 10 megatractor on every ship in the fleet-- you need a big heavy tractor, plus a big heavy powerplant to run the thing continuously. No capacitors, because the weapon needs a continuous power supply.
Finally, you know you want this, because
BOARDING OPERATIONS
Nuff said.
This seems like a cool tech line, especially when you consider that with technology like that you could likely create a force beam ala starfire, incredibly small aperature so only one armor square, but extremely large, powerful and VERY close range. but requiring fairly high technology levels as well as being extremely power intensive.
-
Offensive Tractoring
Gravity wave focusing enables the long-range gravitational tethering of ships. The tech line is designed to enable beam-warships to trap and tether ships outside the combat range, slowing them in much the same way that a black hole interacts with non-newtonian technology.
The technology could also be used by missile ships to play "keep away" on beam ships-- shaving their precious speed advantages.
Example: A class 1 offensive tractor would slow the target ship by 1000 km/s.
Range would have to be considered. I was thinking the 20-50 m/km range to give beam ships a middling way to project power over long ranges.
Power Requirements: I'm thinking these babies should be a huge draw on power. This would prevent people from plopping a class 10 megatractor on every ship in the fleet-- you need a big heavy tractor, plus a big heavy powerplant to run the thing continuously. No capacitors, because the weapon needs a continuous power supply.
Finally, you know you want this, because
BOARDING OPERATIONS
Nuff said.
Viable against ships only? Or could I smack a missile salvo with this, making my interception chances better?
-
Crews should gain experience while in combat, not just when recieving damage...maybe make it when they fire too or something. Seems rough that i can kill enemies and get no crew xp but i can let them pound me and get some.
-Five
-
A few friends and I were discussing the possibility of rudimentary ground-unit design. I'm not sure exactly how it would work, but I was thinking potentially you might design a ground unit in the same way you design a ship component and the like. It would add some flavour to ground combat rather than having generic "infantry battalions" and "assault infantry battalions".
-
Auto fire: Would be nice to be able to place only certain weapons on autofire.
Example: Bismark class BB. 4 Double 12" laser turrets for anti shipping and 8 single 6" laser all target cannons.
When I order the big guns to fire on enemy ships, they will engage missiles first and only if there is no missile they will fire at they enemy ship I want them to kill....
Maybe a auto fire box at each fire control, or a system were you place groups of weapons with specific orders and then give them a autofire box.
-
Auto fire: Would be nice to be able to place only certain weapons on autofire.
Example: Bismark class BB. 4 Double 12" laser turrets for anti shipping and 8 single 6" laser all target cannons.
When I order the big guns to fire on enemy ships, they will engage missiles first and only if there is no missile they will fire at they enemy ship I want them to kill....
Maybe a auto fire box at each fire control, or a system were you place groups of weapons with specific orders and then give them a autofire box.
Auto fire isn't really intended for player usage. If I remember correctly it's there for use by the AI, and players are allowed to use it as well for kicks.
Although it would be nice to see it get improved so that the AI is a bit more deadly in larger engagements.
-
Viable against ships only? Or could I smack a missile salvo with this, making my interception chances better?
It seems that the strength of the tractor would degrade with the speed of the object/you need tracking speed to use it, because slowing down a missile moving at 50kps is a much more difficult matter than a ship moving at 5kps.
-
#1) Civilian shipping is, by far, the most annoying thing in Aurora. I frequently want to launch guided missile attacks on my civilian shipping....that's how much it annoys me. Trade and commerce is usually my favorite part of strategy games (I'm a peace freak) but in Aurora, it ads very little and takes a whole heck of a lot: every system is crowded with blue dots I have absolutely no control over, and they don't seem to contribute very much. Honestly, if they all exploded, would it hurt my empire at all? Civilian shipping needs to be more fun: perhaps slightly more interactive or at least cooler to study.
Well, you can just change the display setting and you wont see the civilian blue dots at all. I personally find that civilians do add quite a lot. They generate a noticeable amount of wealth, and more importantly, they provide a significant source of infrastructure for free. From a meta-point of view they also somewhat reduce the need for colonist-micromanagement.
But yeah, one of the greatest issues of the game is performance, and civilian shipping lines are one of the culprits as it seems. I could happily live with the minor drawbacks of a no-civilian lines option if that allows the game to run more smoothly. At any rate, the announced changes mean there will be less civilian traffic around, since obsolete ships now get scrapped after a while. So just maybe we will have some better performance then.
-
Steve.
an very need useful info r: where is and how much amount of them of: minerals in every Colony are reserved on surface? (MINED obviously..NOT below surface:...we have a perfect minerals Report window)
Improve ore transport for taskgroup in and out.
Better management in war and know where,when ,how much.
WE need to know where is mineral colony depot and amount for everyone around.
Apologize my poor english.Hope r understandable.
-
Do you mean the Stockpile?
-
Steve.
an very need useful info r: where is and how much amount of them of: minerals in every Colony are reserved on surface? (MINED obviously..NOT below surface:...we have a perfect minerals Report window)
Improve ore transport for taskgroup in and out.
Better management in war and know where,when ,how much.
WE need to know where is mineral colony depot and amount for everyone around.
Apologize my poor english.Hope r understandable.
Do you mean a window with something like:
Duranium: 1,000 -
Earth: 1,000
Neutronium: 1,200 +
Corbomite: 2,835,520 -
Earth: 58,000
Mars: 6,710
etc...
If so, I'd also like that... maybe an option to exclude reserve levels, so you'd only see what is available for immediate transport.
-
Do you mean a window with something like:
Duranium: 1,000 -
Earth: 1,000
Neutronium: 1,200 +
Corbomite: 2,835,520 -
Earth: 58,000
Mars: 6,710
etc...
yes srry damn..horrible english:))
"Stockpile" on Colony surface yes!
ive been missed this useful info..am fear we havent those info..
If so, I'd also like that... maybe an option to exclude reserve levels, so you'd only see what is available for immediate transport.
-
Yes please, that would be excellent!
-
Allow us to form teams of scientists, same as for Xenology, Diplomacy, etc....
Teams would be:
5 Scientists with the same speciality
Allow a research project to use the sum of all the team members administrative rank (so, 5 members each with rank 4 would be a rating of 20, or 100 total labs)
Research bonus based off of the maximum bonus of the team (Bonuses of 0%, 5%, 5%, 20%, 25% would leave the team having a 25% bonus)
This would be good for those late game techs, where you have a good percentage scientist but those 60 labs are just too slow.
-
I was making my own post when I found out that someone had already covered this topic. For some reason he also seems to be fixated on fridges and their effect on the economy.
Re: Official Suggestion Thread for 5.20 or later
« Reply #603 on: September 16, 2011, 06:14:32 AM »
I would like not to be notified when secondary orders take place.
I would also like the ability to tell my fleets 'act like a civilian', aka when I'm not using my transport fleet it should move infrastructure and buildings around, and if it is a colony fleet it should move colonists around. This is so my fleets do useful non-micromanage things until I have something essential, such as a new colony that needs to be founded.
Patrol orders would also be nice. While possibly a waste of fuel, assigned sensor ships can attempt to move around the system's planets and jump points that is not already covered by say planetary sensors or other ships and look for contacts. Useful in core worlds and potentially a threat if done by an NPR you are trying to sneak up on.
One of this game's strengths to me is the civilians. It is an aspect that is almost completely unexplored in other games. For this reason I'd like to also suggest playable civilian shipping lanes and have these be interesting to play.
This will likely require an overhaul of civilians in its entirety, though I offer a few suggestions of what I'd like to see here(scroll down for TLDR version):
Shipyards: The ability to 'rent' shipyards (no more ships appearing from nowhere, but government does gain some wealth from it). A few ways of doing this I think... since this renting will affect the player. Either allow the civilians to build ships without needing to refit the shipyard, or require the player to create a shipyard for every civilian ship he wants built. An alternative is private civilian owned shipyards, either instead of rentable shipyards or in addition to them. I also don't find it unlikely that civilians can create ships without (space) shipyards. The cost is much greater, but possible. It is just not something a government that already has access to its own shipyards would often want to do, but is an option for those less well equipped. Would also provide continuity with current 'appearance' of ships.
Minerals: Civilian ships not appearing out of nowhere means the resources for the ships can't appear out of nowhere, which needs minerals are needed for civilians, while not affecting the current empire's game too much or creating a greater strain on minerals the game currently does. I'm thinking standard games would have for every 1 unit of mineral mined, an extra 0.2 is mined for free that isn't removed from planet's minable amounts and goes to civilians, with some government types like dictatorships getting 1.15 while civilians only 0.05, and free market governments possibly 0.8 to government and 0.4 to civilians. These can be bought or sold in case of excess amounts and civilian demands, but otherwise be 'free' yet untouchable. These ratios will have a DIRECT influence on the growth and ability of civilian ships. Civilian minerals would obviously also require civilian ships being able to move minerals around properly, for the government and themselves. I'm thinking a combination of reserve levels and designation of 'stockpile' colonies should do it. Non-stockpile colonies will keep minerals AT the reserve levels, while stockpile colonies will have minimum reserve levels, but otherwise try gather as much else they can. Civilian minerals ignore stockpiling and form their own rules on where and when they are needed.
Private Industry: As for employment and industry... when it says 6 million workers available, I highly doubt that means 6 million workers unemployed. Just simply not employed by government or for essential services. This means those 6 million people are in service industries, or manufacturing, such as making fridges and servicing them. I also notice that if you do a Pre-TN start, you have a bunch of Traditional Industry factories that are government owned. Now, while TN research completely changes space-travel, does it really change traditional industries? An assembly line is still an assembly line, just potentially with cost savings on accelerating engines and friction and drag. So why would these not continue to be used and pop up, only under civilian control.
I don't find it unreasonable that some of this manufacturing would even be made available to the government, perhaps explaining why 1 of these buildings only supply 1/10th of a mine, factory and ordanance factory I think it was... since much of the rest of its capacity is used in service and non-governmental uses. These can then also pop up and grow with available population. This means that big colonies will always have SOME civilian enabled mining and production capability, though it will never even approach that of a world with dedicated facilities instead of unfocused civilian factories. Having limited production capability on most worlds will open plenty of tactics and possibilities, as well as incentive to keep some amount of minerals on most worlds. Civilian factories can also be a source of most and consumer of many trade goods, meaning that these will no longer be made out of thin air and consumed invisibly. Population will still consume many stuff like luxury goods regardless of private employment, but goods like machinery will be consumed and generated at a far faster rate by a world with more of its population in private industry than not. Agriculture is another potential, with a manufacturing world possibly requiring food imports for its citizens all working in factories. A lack of private industry in your empire, such as if you make sure all of your population is employed in some way or another, could devastate supplies of many trade goods, resulting in a wealth crash. I don't see this as a negative thing and on par with the intentional evils and crashes of the current game.
An extention of this idea is that 'unemployed' civilians generate wealth, employed civilians cost wealth. It will be difficult to find a balance I think, but will also make debt management easier (shut down government factories for a while, save on the employees salaries and tax them when they find jobs for private industry.)
Research: Way I see it work currently is that the government doesn't actually do any of its own research. This is all done by private industry or contractors, but with grants, tenders and requests guiding and focussing where the RP ends up through money. Research labs are basically equipped universities or research lab contractors mostly owned(directly or indirectly) and controlled by the government. The Scientist leaders are employed 'administrators' rather than scientists in their own right, guiding and allocating priorities and spending, culling unproductive branches and encouraging positive avenues of research to obtain the best results, something which obviously does need knowledge of the domain. But while this is the best way to obtain results that doesn't mean it is the ONLY research going on. Private industry would come up with ideas, papers and innovations, all of which would grant RP, but spread randomly across all non-racial(aka design screen) techs. Potentially even civilian owned research labs can be built with lower RP output than government labs (They would focus on better fridges rather than space engines, but might still help deliver an innovation or two), but can be rented by the government for wealth.
The idea here is that while civilians and private industry are useful, they won't compare to the focus a player or NPR government can provide. The manufacturing bonus provided by civilians on a manufacturing world should be a small amount of the total.
Privateers: Most Sci-fi stories and games have Privateers of some sort or another. These are either explorers and prospectors, in the name of capitalism expanding the borders of the empire, finding new worlds and minerals for a finders fee, or they are militants who take up arms to defend the empire in times of war, or they are pirates or those who hunt them. In all of these cases it expands the role of civilians from just transporting stuff. On the most basic side, geo survey ships can be civilian controlled allowing exploration of new planets, potentially grav survey ships as well (Though I strongly recommend against allowing them to explore jump points, if this is implemented). A suggestion would be to make grav sensors civilian equipment, as well as thermal, em and active sensors below a certain size (say 1 or so). You should never be able to equip a size 50 sensor on a maintenance-free ship, but I see no reason for small ones suggesting just basic equipment, even it is usually only enough to see a missile coming just shortly before you blow up. If implemented, civilian explorers should be able to be switchable on and off on game settings. The lack of control and direction additionally means it might be more efficient to do it yourself.
Para-military: As for more military civilian ships such as at its most basic level transport ship escorts, I don't think many governments would 'rent' a naval shipyard. This might need a civilian naval shipyard(potentially with lax weapon laws under some government types?), or the ability for civilians to build small warships on the ground, or if it is possible to create a fighter with enough range, have civilians use fighters for escort duties. Alternatively civilian ships can be 'refitted' by civilians with non-standard equipment, such as a laser turret on a transport, or a special player created ship marked that civilians can use it as a base to add weapons to. Civilians already create a ground troop on civilian mining colonies, so similar private security forces should also be able to be formed on outlying worlds or where companies have great amount of assets. It might even be a bad thing if the amount of private forces outnumber government forces, allowing more corporate state policies and unhappy citizens. Such civilian military can be useful against hostile empires, possibly rallying when the race is under thread, but be no replacement for an actual navy. (THOUGHT: Anarchy government types, potentially meaning the AI will spawn A LOT more civilians, could they be viable in a military way? Won't have coordination but maybe with numbers?)
Pirates can potentially also form, essentially civilian shipping lanes who are hostile. This should be more likely with lower political stability, and higher inequality, less likely with wealth and a military presence. If things get TOO bad the colony itself might descend into anarchy and piracy. Pirate bases can form most anyplace outside sensor range in the same way mining colonies do. They have access to any tech you do, though with less manufacturing capability and greater stealth. If they create their own ship types it will often be 'modified' commonly available civilian ships. They'll attack civilians ships(warning shot, potentially either destroying or having the civilian surrender, taking it off your visible list of ships, potentially reappearing later as a pirate) while trying evade your troops and not lead you back to their base, which might even include a PDC. Eliminating pirates shouldn't be TOO difficult, just be largely a nuisance, causing political instability in its system and requiring you to have some ships spread across your empire and not just the frontiers. Eliminating a pirate base additionally should only be short-term solution if you don't address the reason why it formed in the first place. Player military ships or civilian military ships can also be given an escort order to follow around transports and keep an eye out for pirates.
Additionally, the behavior of civilians can be controlled by government type, since I assume this to be a reflection of a society's values as well as how the shots are called. Players who want more direct control can select something like a dictatorship, while players wanting more civilian activity and freedom might select anarchy or direct democracy. Additionally, more militant government types might see more military civilian ships, while others might not see any.
Player Civilian Corporations: Not quite shipping lanes anymore, but possibly interesting enough to play. A player civilian corporation will at least initially be linked strongly to an empire with assumed high security clearance and access to its full technologies. A player corporation has access to that 'untapped' production provided by civilian created traditional industries that is not given to the empire and can use this to construct more buildings, shipyards and ships. Its main resource is wealth, which it generates itself through unused factory capacity and over time, payments from the empire as well as trading(some of which is taxed). The 'share' of minerals it gets is dependant on its market share of the planet. Constructing more facilities and gaining wealth can increase this. If playing a corporation for a NPR, minerals can be bought and sold freely, else if it is a Player empire, offers can be made that the empire player has to accept. It can found its own mining or other unmanned automated colonies, potentially even corporate owned civilian worlds with actual populations, though I am not too certain how to work that.
A player civilian corporation can keep track of its own ship designs seperately from the empire. It has access to all the technologies it has security clearance for (either none, low for civilian rated only equipment or high for all technology). If it doesn't have access to a tech it can potentially BUY that tech from an empire(foreign empire's designs or high clearance items with a low clearance start). Though a corporation will initially start linked to an empire, there is no reason it has to remain that way. Through its actions it can raise its clearance with other empires or lose it. It can potentially even turn traitor.
A player corporation has a seperate much sparser research tree than an empire which usually focuses on manufacturing improvements (allowing ship components to be built for less points or minerals than an empire can build it, possibly by replacing many trans-newtonian parts with traditional materials) or marketing, increasing its market share, increasing supply of trade good or demand of trade goods. It can accept empire contracts for building movements, as well as contracts for building ship parts. Perhaps even its own special components that can be used in its own ships, or sold to empires, though that would require special ship designs to use it which is micromanagementy... It can rent manufacturing capability, research labs or even shipyards to an empire for extra wealth from buildings. Possibly it can even do training, granting the empire access to at least partially trained troops. Potentially it can even build ships or warships on the ground then launch, though at a greater cost (why would a government do it if it has access to naval yards? Also in reference to how I see it currently happening.)
If it has access to war technologies and a way to build warships, a player corporation can assist in a way of private military or as scouts and escorts, perhaps even just selling already completed ships to the player. It may even incite war by attacking alien civilians or enemies without knowledge or permission of its empire.
Additionally, another type of corporation might be a pirate or a crime syndicate, an organisation that works against an empire more directly. It would also have a 'market share' but this would reduce political stability and raise security concerns for the world. Secret, stolen or intimidated civilian manufacturing can create its products. Potentially it can even be both a legit corporation and a secret crime syndicate at the same time. Its power grows with less stability, something that can be encouraged with propaganda, possibly even taking over the world if it gets too low. It can form pirate bases, steal ships and generally increase its influence, but it is vulnerable on well-protected and defended worlds where local police can arrest members if it becomes too ambitious, reducing its influence.
While I would like to see all of this ingame, I would also hate to HAVE to have a player corporation alongside my player empire to get max benefit. All these advantages should be supplied by the AI corporations, just... less controllable and focussed than if a player did it. Playing as a Player Corporation for an NPR, or even as traders who sell and trade goods over a dozen NPRs should be possible. A Player Corporation should be powerful, though weak compared to an empire.
This should be controllable by the empire though, though either game or government settings since not everyone would appreciate a game like this, judging my some posts that complain about even the current level of civilian AI.
TLDR; I'd like to see civilians play a larger role in the game, but not become too powerful. I'd like to see player controlled shipping lines, but for this to be interesting plenty stuff has to be improved which will make game better even when not playing with player controlled shipping lines.
Ug, monster post...
Adding to that:
Company Models: Like modern companies, Aurora companies could focus in one area of expertise, such as planetary security, frontier colony efforts or passenger/cruise liners. A company that focuses in terraforming would obviously produce more terraformer ships, would focus in moving terraform modules, orbital habitats, and may even have it's own engineering brigade to set up PDCs.
Company Loyalty: Similar to planetary unrest, there should be a rating to grade how a company feels towards the player. A low loyalty may have the company remove it's head office from your homeworld, have the co. evade taxes or even outright rebel. Certain actions such as subsidizing may increase loyalty, while nationalizing one of their CMCs may reduce their loyalty.
Company Weapon Laws: Now that companies can create and design their own ships, perhaps we can now have armed merchants or Q-ships. A merchant fleet that is dealing with piracy could be allowed weapons to a limit (size and numbers OR percentage of hull), reducing the weakness of merchants but allowing civilians control over military weapon systems.
Company Diplomacy: Have it so companies can buy and sell their CMCs, build their own orbital habitats, and trade their ship designs with other companies they are in contact with. Also improve the way the player may deal with Co., such as hostile takeovers, acquisition, lend-lease, loans and grants. Allow grants to be issued for more long term projects, such as 'set up base on mars::terraformer' to be given to the company of your choosing or to be applied for.
Add more information: Have it so companies must hire from the labour pool, track the number of employees for said company and track their equity as well as their wealth. If a company with a large amount of employed people were to fail or be disbanded forcible, it would be a serious hit to unrest.
Expand on government types: A communist government would have complete control over all aspects of the economy, including the civilian shipping companies. The player could adjust the amount of ships the company may have at one time, what they are doing and how powerful they may become. A free market economy would have no such control, but the civilians would have a much richer prospect.
Lovin' these bold texts.
-
I know I can't go off spacefaring, destroying enemy battlefleets, conquering colonies and homeworlds without the bridge fridge. It had better be full and working properly or morale will be pretty low until it is.
-
STEVE!!!!!!...5.7 or 6.0 are missing?..testing?
whynot none help u in ur work?..
-
One thing I have noted that is a a little annoying is that when creating teams there is no way see the cumulative percentage of the team before creating it.
Its a little annoying when you are trying to create multiple teams as close to the 150 limit as possible. You have to manually add the percentages of each member together or create and disband over and over till you get it right.
A simple display that show collective percentage of all selected/ticketed personnel would be great.
-
I've just started playing 6.0, and it seems like we could really use a "Shore Leave" command for ships at populated colonies. Right now I have to move my geosurvey ships back to Earth, turn off their conditional orders, wait for the notice that shore leave is completed, and then set up the conditional orders again. Or am I missing something?
-
I've just started playing 6.0, and it seems like we could really use a "Shore Leave" command for ships at populated colonies. Right now I have to move my geosurvey ships back to Earth, turn off their conditional orders, wait for the notice that shore leave is completed, and then set up the conditional orders again. Or am I missing something?
I toyed around a bit last night with 6.0 and my survey ships did shore leave when they refueled (which was depressingly often).
-
With Jump drive efficiency tech I'm struggling with the fact that improving the tech reduces my ability to build smaller jump tenders. Ie If I build a 3k jump drive for my survey ships with tech 4 all is fine but if I use tech 5 then the ship become self jump only.
I would have thought it would be better to move the self jump only to the size multiplier on maximum number of ships for a suadron transit. Ie 100% size for three ships but say 80% size for self jump.
-
Calculate the temperature of a world based on the average of its orbit if the body orbits a secondary star. sometimes they pass close enough to a system primary that they should get a higher temperature for some of the year.
-
With Jump drive efficiency tech I'm struggling with the fact that improving the tech reduces my ability to build smaller jump tenders. Ie If I build a 3k jump drive for my survey ships with tech 4 all is fine but if I use tech 5 then the ship become self jump only.
It doesn't interfere with it at all, the tech imposes a bottom limit on the size of the drive you can use and still squad jump. That limit is flat and unaffected by efficiency tech.
-
It doesn't interfere with it at all, the tech imposes a bottom limit on the size of the drive you can use and still squad jump. That limit is flat and unaffected by efficiency tech.
I think the point he's trying to make is that he can't take advantage of the size reduction in the engine, i.e. going from efficiency 3-->4 would allow a 40ton engine-->30ton for the same ship.
Yes you could keep the same size engine, but then that engine is overpowered for the hull it's in.
John
PS - I hope everyone's aware that this is NOT the "official" suggestions thread....
-
I think the point he's trying to make is that he can't take advantage of the size reduction in the engine, i.e. going from efficiency 3-->4 would allow a 40ton engine-->30ton for the same ship.
Yes you could keep the same size engine, but then that engine is overpowered for the hull it's in.
John
PS - I hope everyone's aware that this is NOT the "official" suggestions thread....
Yep, that was my point
-
civilian controlled terraformer ships.
they fly to colonies that you have terraforming set on and you pay them to work while they are in orbit.
this could help out in the event that all fr/cs/LL's for that company are scraped due to age and can't be replaced due to cash with out the need for the player to intervene
see way len and craven corporations (Did I spell them right?)
-
civilian controlled terraformer ships.
they fly to colonies that you have terraforming set on and you pay them to work while they are in orbit.
this could help out in the event that all fr/cs/LL's for that company are scraped due to age and can't be replaced due to cash with out the need for the player to intervene
see way len and craven corporations (Did I spell them right?)
Do you mean Wayland Yutani? Oh boy, that will turn out just great. Those poor biological scientists must feel neglected.
-
Calculate the temperature of a world based on the average of its orbit if the body orbits a secondary star. sometimes they pass close enough to a system primary that they should get a higher temperature for some of the year.
This is possible but the reason I don't calculate it is the same reason I don't have elliptical orbits. If a planet colony cost may change during its year, it might move between habitable and non-habitable. I would have to display a range of colony costs and update the colony cost every increment as it slowly changed. Would add complexity to the code and for the player. I'm not sure that gameplay would benefit from the change (in terms of additional micromanagement vs extra fun).
Steve
-
I don't think he's asking for a dynamic value, just that the static one takes into account its maximum and minimum distance from the primary.
Though, if it gets hotter as it gets closer it would also get colder as it gets farther, my knowledge isn't up to snuff whether or not that would average out to the same value or not
-
I guess this is the main suggestion thread then?
- Wait-until-time: Instead of waiting for X days, allow the selection of a specific time to halt the turn.
- When an event has been filtered out of the event viewer menu, do not halt the simulation for it.
- Standing production orders: Create production orders that act like "continual capacity expansion". For instance, devoting either 1% or 10 factories to producing maintenance supplies, or permanently having 50% of factories set to produce more factories.
- When missiles are completed, add them to the pool immediately, rather than waiting for the whole job to complete. Or is this already the case? I thought I was seeing this on my end.
- Smaller default list of spaceship classes: I like to name and define each of my classes. It'd be great if I could do that from a blank slate, and/or remove obsolete classes.
- Print money: Use CD drives to produce undetectable forgeries of major modern currency.
-
This is not the main suggestion thread, and I'm locking it to prevent any more mistakes of this sort.
Missiles do get added as completed.