Suggestions for 5.7 and beyond

[ollobrains]

insurgents could act as a disruption tactic until u can take the planet back

[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

[Steve Walmsley]

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

[Brian Neumann]

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

[ExChairman]

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.

[ollobrains]

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

[CheaterEater]

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.

[Erik L]

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.

[CheaterEater]

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.

[ollobrains]

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 ?

[Erik L]

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.

[ollobrains]

are there any new elements or ideas we can get steve or suggest to steve going forward into game

[davidr]

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

[xeryon]

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.

[UnLimiTeD]

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.