C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions

[hostergaard]

That would be a complete conceptual rework of how ships fit together, which doesn't really sound that appealing.

It would work mostly the same, except that there is a clearer and more logical approach to how ship variants work and more depht.

Don't remember numbers but you can have one "hull" and a lot of variants of them, and every variant can be built in the same shipyard as basic model. 

Issue is, there its based entirely on a somewhat arbitrary number that does not really lend itself making variants. The options are currently extremely limited as the game does not fully understand that you could probably somewhat easily replace certain modules. Sure, you can make many variants, but with very minor changes. As far as I remember, say you design two large engines of same sizes, the game will not let you readily swap the two even if they are close in design because it sees it as a large change, even if its a small one effectively.

But most importantly, its very dissatisfying to work with an arbitrary system of points compared to the depth that the rest of the game works on. Its more fun an engaging to say, hey, I can this hull point here, maybe I can swap this part in here, or maybe this, or maybe, instead and change the ships operation parameters instead of hey, lets see if this is too big a point change to make this tiny change. 

[the obelisk]

It would work mostly the same, except that there is a clearer and more logical approach to how ship variants work and more depht.

You're talking about moving from a system entirely based around the quantity and quality of components in the ship to a system where we have to design hulls with hard-points and hull-spaces and possibly research both them and their variants.  That's significantly different.  The current system of "if they're similar enough the shipyard can build both" works fine.

[hostergaard]

You're talking about moving from a system entirely based around the quantity and quality of components in the ship to a system where we have to design hulls with hard-points and hull-spaces and possibly research both them and their variants.  That's significantly different.  The current system of "if they're similar enough the shipyard can build both" works fine.

Its not particularly different, it would effectively work the same in all aspects except for some added dept. Its so similar in fact that for any player not wanting to design ship variant the ship designing process it could be 100% identical with no changes whatsoever to the current the way of doing it if its absolut necessary for some people to accept it.

And no, the problem is that it does not work fine. Just the opposite. Its an arbitrary and completely uninteresting way to do ship variants with little room for experimentation or variation. The current system works horribly as proven that 99% of the time no one use it. I have read trough so many LPs and AARs and its used next to never in any significant capacity. As is right now its simply not a viable option because its so limited, inflexible and arbitrary.

Edit: Sorry for making this a debate in the suggestion thread, lets discus it further in the separate threat I have made for the suggestion, if anyone want to debate it further.

[sloanjh (OP)]

Edit: Sorry for making this a debate in the suggestion thread, lets discus it further in the separate threat I have made for the suggestion, if anyone want to debate it further.

Thanks for splitting it out!!!

John

[davidr]

With conditional orders on C# - if there is a similar order to the current  conditional order for Fuel Harvesters " unload 90% fuel at colony " ,  could the new order please include an option that the colony must be one with actual colonists or instead specify a colony by actual name and not just to a colony.

The reason being that on my current game the Fuel Harvesters at Jupiter seem to want to unload 90% of fuel at a passing comet with automated mines , rather than at Earth where my stockpile of fuel is kept. 

DavidR

[Steve Walmsley]

With conditional orders on C# - if there is a similar order to the current  conditional order for Fuel Harvesters " unload 90% fuel at colony " ,  could the new order please include an option that the colony must be one with actual colonists or instead specify a colony by actual name and not just to a colony.

The reason being that on my current game the Fuel Harvesters at Jupiter seem to want to unload 90% of fuel at a passing comet with automated mines , rather than at Earth where my stockpile of fuel is kept. 

DavidR

The unload 90% fuel will require a colony with either a spaceport or a refuelling station.

[JustAnotherDude]

On the combat screen,weapons assigned to fire controls should be green while unassigned ones should be red.  Same goes for missiles.  Also, if a fire control is selected all of it's weapons should be highlighted.

This would make it far easier to assigns and reassign weapons on ships, as it is fairly confusing right now.

[Steve Walmsley]

On the combat screen,weapons assigned to fire controls should be green while unassigned ones should be red.  Same goes for missiles.  Also, if a fire control is selected all of it's weapons should be highlighted.

This would make it far easier to assigns and reassign weapons on ships, as it is fairly confusing right now.

See below for a link to the new combat view. Unassigned weapons have their own section so there should not be any confusion over assignment.

http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8455.msg103656#msg103656

[JustAnotherDude]

Huh, I'm sorry.  Thought I had read through the changes list too.  Thanks, Steve!

[GeaXle]

Ship and Tech blueprint system

It would be nice to design a tech as a blueprint, that I can use to make a ship blueprint without having to research them. When I am happy with the final ship design I can start to research the tech so that the ship blueprint becomes buildable.

This way I don't have to research multiple sensors with very small changes so that I can finally ensure the ships fits in the size I want it to have.

[captain_carrot]

Not sure if this in the works already, but I didn't see it anywhere.

Besides the bug that creates multiple colonies when sending colonists/cargo to a colony, it would be nice if different species on a single colony were combined under a single tab in the production window.

For example, I first moved some auto mines and infrastructure to Europa while my genetic modification centers on Mars finished up the Jovian Belters species (low base temp, low oxygen requirement, low gravity).   After moving my Jovian Belters to Europa, I now have two colonies:

Europa-Human with 20x automines and all my infrastructure
Europa-Jovian Belters with rising unrest because of no infrastructure

cycling orders to move mines/infrastructure/minerals between the two colonies on the same body using cargo ships didn't seem to work particularly well. . .

also, it would be nice if colonies were sorted by population on the task group orders menu, so I don't have to scroll passed 15 civ mines to find my Europa colony.   That's a minor inconvenience though.

Maybe this is an unintended bug to be fixed rather than a feature to be added, but that's my suggestion.

[davidr]

Steve,

If possible please can rescued friendly NPR crew not be classified as POW's so that they can be repatriated to their own colony if the opportunity arises. At present every NPR crew rescued is treated as a POW no matter what the player relationship is with the NPR.

DavidR

[TMaekler]

Time Progression: I would like to have an option button which, when enabled, progresses time unto a set point in time, depending on the time progression you chose - but not defined by the number of the button, but rather "unto a set point in time".

Well, I quess, it is not obvious, what I mean; so let me explain.
Normally, when you press "30 days" the game just progresses 30 days (if it does not encounter a break event). No matter what the starting time is you always end up 30 days later. But if you beforehand enabled the mentioned "option button" the game will "only" progress until the next set point in time - which for "30 days" could be the 1st day of the next month. So no matter if you press the "30 days" on the 3rd of the month or the 21st, it will always only jump ahead to the 1st of the next month.

I was thinking that for the early game, a time progression of 365 days might be an interesting addition to archive a maximum of possible time progression. But for the way I play it would also be interesting to always land in the 1st day of the next year; no matter what. I of course could archive that by clicking the needed time jump button; but that is a tad annoying. So such an option button for this would be handy... .

[Garfunkel]

Space Elevator

A staple of classic sci-fi, the Beanstalk Space Elevator, would be a an expensive installation that cannot be moved, requires X level of spaceport before it can be constructed, but afterwards works equal as to level X+Y spaceport. It should be slightly cheaper and/or faster to construct than equal levels of space ports.

For example, say it requires level 4 space port to build but a space elevator would be equal to level 8 space port. That way you can move those 4 space ports elsewhere after it's constructed.

I know I can just RP that at certain space port level it's actually a Beanstalk, but it would be cool to have an actual construct. Especially now that space ports will become movable in Aurora C#

[serger]

Add a table of variable values, that will represent science, engineering and common knowledge, that race A have about race B, and/or a race variable, that indicates overall xenology knowledge level of this race.
Both levels must have an increase, when your sigint, spies, interrogators, traders, xenologists etc have a success with some race or artifact (the last is a reason for high-tech races to explore low-tech ruins too).
Overall xenology knowledge level have to be a multiplier for the table values increases. Table values have to be multipliers for new sigint, spies and interrogators deals, or even some increase in detection radius and fire accuracy (especially at ground combat).