Author Topic: C# Suggestions  (Read 266076 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Pesinario

  • Able Ordinary Rate
  • P
  • Posts: 2
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • I am not the greatest aurora player out there
  • Discord Username: Pesinario#8142
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #1680 on: April 12, 2021, 11:40:27 AM »
It would be nice to be able to give a condition to a fleet to do X (most likely resupply and overhaul) after MSP falls below max repair, it's common for me to have fleets with over 20% MSP get a maintenance failure that breaks the only engine, since the MSP of the engine is more than 20% my reserves
 
The following users thanked this post: papent, LiquidGold2, Norm49, nuclearslurpee

Offline nuclearslurpee

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2960
  • Thanked: 2222 times
  • Radioactive frozen beverage.
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #1681 on: April 12, 2021, 12:01:06 PM »
Please change the rank ratio for ground forces to be 4:1 (as I believe it was in VB6).

The current 3:1 is not feasible for trying to model any modern military formation structure post-WWI era. The change was made for C# along with the 2:1 ratio (was 3:1) for naval officers, however ground forces did not receive the non-command roles as naval officers did, so there is no good reason for the change to 3:1 ratio.

Many people would prefer to see non-command roles added. I agree, but as this would be extra work I would rather have the reversion to 4:1 ratio than no change at all.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2021, 12:03:20 PM by nuclearslurpee »
 

Offline Barkhorn

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 719
  • Thanked: 133 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #1682 on: April 12, 2021, 06:04:33 PM »
Please change the rank ratio for ground forces to be 4:1 (as I believe it was in VB6).

The current 3:1 is not feasible for trying to model any modern military formation structure post-WWI era. The change was made for C# along with the 2:1 ratio (was 3:1) for naval officers, however ground forces did not receive the non-command roles as naval officers did, so there is no good reason for the change to 3:1 ratio.

Many people would prefer to see non-command roles added. I agree, but as this would be extra work I would rather have the reversion to 4:1 ratio than no change at all.
Why not just let us set our own ratios?
 
The following users thanked this post: LiquidGold2, Foxxonius Augustus

Offline nuclearslurpee

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2960
  • Thanked: 2222 times
  • Radioactive frozen beverage.
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #1683 on: April 12, 2021, 06:06:14 PM »
Please change the rank ratio for ground forces to be 4:1 (as I believe it was in VB6).

The current 3:1 is not feasible for trying to model any modern military formation structure post-WWI era. The change was made for C# along with the 2:1 ratio (was 3:1) for naval officers, however ground forces did not receive the non-command roles as naval officers did, so there is no good reason for the change to 3:1 ratio.

Many people would prefer to see non-command roles added. I agree, but as this would be extra work I would rather have the reversion to 4:1 ratio than no change at all.
Why not just let us set our own ratios?

This would be even better but I dare not set my hopes on the impossible.  :P
 
The following users thanked this post: Foxxonius Augustus

Offline Demetrious

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • D
  • Posts: 65
  • Thanked: 40 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #1684 on: April 18, 2021, 02:22:05 PM »
Am I the only one who feels it would be appropriate to have another mission type for ground support fighters called "Suppress STO?" This would allow ground support fighters to attack revealed STO elements without fear of reprisal. Weapons built to engage starships at quarter-light-second distances wouldn't be able to engage low-flying fighters. It'd also obligate hostile ground forces to assign AA units to their STO formations.

Using airpower to attack rear-echelon troops like this is standard military practice, but given the importance of STO units - and the fact that they reveal their location when they fire by dint of their massive power plants and output - it makes sense that we'd be able to attack them directly. It would also go a long way towards solving the current collateral damage problems in the game - while collateral damage values may need tweaking eventually, the fact that the only viable way of suppressing STO's is with direct naval bombardment certainly doesn't help. While free-ranging Seek and Destroy missions might well find and engage STO units already, the chance is greatly diluted by all the normal ground combat formations... which is the entire point of having STO units hold fire to begin with; to hide them and retain a threat that can "pop up" later to surprise enemy space assets trying to move in and provide close support. (Much how modern SAM systems are often used.)

This would help make ground fighters far more crucial for allowing the capture of a planet without mass devastation of population and infrastructure and, conversely, make AAA defenses much more important for repelling invasions. A combination of AAA and STO units would be instrumental in denying the enemy orbital superiority, making it hard for them to land troops, resupply them, or provide orbital bombardment support.

This change should probably wait till the version after next, however, as the STO bug that let them fire on fighters on ground support missions has prevented anyone from playtesting how fighters v. STO's work with the extant rules.
 
The following users thanked this post: Kristover, papent, Warer, Foxxonius Augustus

Offline Warer

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 174
  • Thanked: 73 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #1685 on: April 19, 2021, 08:41:44 AM »
Horrible no good balance-shattering component number i8182401840 (Does it count as not serious if I would like to see it just think its very very unlikely?)
External Fighter Clamps/Collar
Cost 50 Size 550 Crew 10 HTK 0/1
Base Chance to hit 100%
Materials Required: Duranium  25    Vendarite  75
Capacity 1000tons
-Half-size military hangar bay that acts like a commercial hanger but is as capable as Hangar Deck while half the size and can, obviously be used on military carriers. Double capacity is meant to be balanced by lack of deployment time pause, and possibly not being able to reload missiles and or maintenance supplies if that proves not enough. Thus a carrier that can carry more fighters but is more expensive and even more vulnerable to fire. Though this would allow for more compact carriers as well.

And here are current a hangar components minus commercial hangers

Hangar Deck
Cost 100   Size 1,050 tons   Crew 15   HTK 4
Base Chance to hit 100%
Materials Required: Duranium  25    Vendarite  75   

Boat Bay - Small
Cost 18   Size 150 tons   Crew 3   HTK 0
Base Chance to hit 100%
Materials Required: Vendarite  18   

Boat Bay
Cost 30   Size 300 tons   Crew 5   HTK 1
Base Chance to hit 100%
Materials Required: Vendarite  30     
 

Offline nuclearslurpee

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2960
  • Thanked: 2222 times
  • Radioactive frozen beverage.
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #1686 on: April 19, 2021, 10:33:35 AM »
Horrible no good balance-shattering component number i8182401840 (Does it count as not serious if I would like to see it just think its very very unlikely?)
External Fighter Clamps/Collar
Cost 50 Size 550 Crew 10 HTK 0/1
Base Chance to hit 100%
Materials Required: Duranium  25    Vendarite  75
Capacity 1000tons
-Half-size military hangar bay that acts like a commercial hanger but is as capable as Hangar Deck while half the size and can, obviously be used on military carriers. Double capacity is meant to be balanced by lack of deployment time pause, and possibly not being able to reload missiles and or maintenance supplies if that proves not enough. Thus a carrier that can carry more fighters but is more expensive and even more vulnerable to fire. Though this would allow for more compact carriers as well.

And here are current a hangar components minus commercial hangers

Hangar Deck
Cost 100   Size 1,050 tons   Crew 15   HTK 4
Base Chance to hit 100%
Materials Required: Duranium  25    Vendarite  75   

Boat Bay - Small
Cost 18   Size 150 tons   Crew 3   HTK 0
Base Chance to hit 100%
Materials Required: Vendarite  18   

Boat Bay
Cost 30   Size 300 tons   Crew 5   HTK 1
Base Chance to hit 100%
Materials Required: Vendarite  30     


Half size isn't going to make much of a difference except maybe in build cost, as the actual size of a carrier is going to have to be scaled up to what it's actually carrying (for purposes of calculating speed, sensor signature, etc.), so you're not saving any tonnage unless the carrier is empty. Unless you're suggesting that a hangar with 550 tons size can carry 1000 tons of fighters and still be considered 550 tons for speed, sensor, etc. purposes, which doesn't make sense.

Given that the existing hangar component essentially "maths out" as 50 tons of component and 1000 tons of fighter space, I'm not sure why not just RP it as an external clamp if you want to. Gripper arms plus refueling and transfer tubes displacing 50 tons seems reasonable to me.
 
The following users thanked this post: Warer

Offline Warer

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 174
  • Thanked: 73 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #1687 on: April 19, 2021, 03:59:22 PM »
Horrible no good balance-shattering component number i8182401840 (Does it count as not serious if I would like to see it just think its very very unlikely?)
External Fighter Clamps/Collar
Cost 50 Size 550 Crew 10 HTK 0/1
Base Chance to hit 100%
Materials Required: Duranium  25    Vendarite  75
Capacity 1000tons
-Half-size military hangar bay that acts like a commercial hanger but is as capable as Hangar Deck while half the size and can, obviously be used on military carriers. Double capacity is meant to be balanced by lack of deployment time pause, and possibly not being able to reload missiles and or maintenance supplies if that proves not enough. Thus a carrier that can carry more fighters but is more expensive and even more vulnerable to fire. Though this would allow for more compact carriers as well.

And here are current a hangar components minus commercial hangers

Hangar Deck
Cost 100   Size 1,050 tons   Crew 15   HTK 4
Base Chance to hit 100%
Materials Required: Duranium  25    Vendarite  75   

Boat Bay - Small
Cost 18   Size 150 tons   Crew 3   HTK 0
Base Chance to hit 100%
Materials Required: Vendarite  18   

Boat Bay
Cost 30   Size 300 tons   Crew 5   HTK 1
Base Chance to hit 100%
Materials Required: Vendarite  30     


Half size isn't going to make much of a difference except maybe in build cost, as the actual size of a carrier is going to have to be scaled up to what it's actually carrying (for purposes of calculating speed, sensor signature, etc.), so you're not saving any tonnage unless the carrier is empty. Unless you're suggesting that a hangar with 550 tons size can carry 1000 tons of fighters and still be considered 550 tons for speed, sensor, etc. purposes, which doesn't make sense.

Given that the existing hangar component essentially "maths out" as 50 tons of component and 1000 tons of fighter space, I'm not sure why not just RP it as an external clamp if you want to. Gripper arms plus refueling and transfer tubes displacing 50 tons seems reasonable to me.
Thanks knew I forgot some minor detail or another~  ;D
Anyway in an attempt to play devils advocate how bout justifying it as either gravity manipulation or "aether magic" ie a regular hangar bay that has systems/devices that "negate" half the mass of its onboard craft and just its own machinery/structure?
Something like
Horrible no good balance-shattering component number i8182401840 MkII (Does it count as not serious if I would like to see it just think its very very unlikely? and you do it twice)
Gravitic Hangar Deck
Cost 150 Size 525 Crew 15 HTK 2
Base Chance to hit 100%
Materials Required: Duranium  38    Vendarite  108 (maybe some other mineral as well? ahh) Uridium 50
Capacity 1000tons
-And to "justify" it I guess you have it be tied to having every type of hangar module (Deck, boat bays and commercial) and then either 3rd of 4th gen Grav Survey sensors

And yes I think it would be useful if you have 12kt carrier with lets say 5kt capacity that's 5.25kt of mass with these that's 2.625kt freeing up space for either more magazines,supply bays, engines, defenses etc
 
« Last Edit: April 19, 2021, 04:01:47 PM by Warer »
 

Offline Warer

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 174
  • Thanked: 73 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #1688 on: April 19, 2021, 04:05:16 PM »
Actually serious(ish) suggestion a thread for Unrealistic Suggestions, a place for people to shove all their "cool and wacky ideas" (me) into a space away from suggestions which might be feasible for a hobby project.
 

Offline xenoscepter

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1154
  • Thanked: 317 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #1689 on: April 19, 2021, 07:15:05 PM »
Actually serious(ish) suggestion a thread for Unrealistic Suggestions, a place for people to shove all their "cool and wacky ideas" (me) into a space away from suggestions which might be feasible for a hobby project.

Make one. ;D
 
The following users thanked this post: Warer

Offline TMaekler

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1112
  • Thanked: 298 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #1690 on: April 20, 2021, 04:52:00 AM »
How about a global range factor for missiles?

It would be great if we could change the overall range calculations for missiles to make it fit better with different scenarios. Whilst long range as it is fits quite well for example into an Expanse Universe, it doesn't fit so much for a Battlestar Galactica Universe where beam and missiles are roughly the same (low) range weapons.
 
The following users thanked this post: Warer

Offline nuclearslurpee

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2960
  • Thanked: 2222 times
  • Radioactive frozen beverage.
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #1691 on: April 20, 2021, 10:55:08 AM »
How about a global range factor for missiles?

It would be great if we could change the overall range calculations for missiles to make it fit better with different scenarios. Whilst long range as it is fits quite well for example into an Expanse Universe, it doesn't fit so much for a Battlestar Galactica Universe where beam and missiles are roughly the same (low) range weapons.

I'm curious how you would accomplish this. Currently the idea of missiles is to use the same engine rules as ships except for the overboost ability, part of the whole idea in C# of making the mechanics consistent rather than the plague of exceptions in VB6. Throwing an extra "divide by X" into the missile range formula seems at odds with that philosophy.

Also this would horribly screw with the NPRs AI, but that's not news.  :P
 
The following users thanked this post: Warer

Offline QuakeIV

  • Registered
  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 759
  • Thanked: 168 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #1692 on: April 20, 2021, 09:28:32 PM »
It wouldn't necessarily screw with NPR AI, but it would definitely derail the intent to make everything follow the same rules.
 

Offline Black

  • Gold Supporter
  • Rear Admiral
  • *****
  • B
  • Posts: 868
  • Thanked: 218 times
  • Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
    2023 Supporter 2023 Supporter : Donate for 2023
    2024 Supporter 2024 Supporter : Donate for 2024
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #1693 on: April 21, 2021, 01:43:54 AM »
I understood TMaekler idea about missile range as something you select at game start in similar way as research and survey speed. Not sure if it is possible or not to implement this in such way.
 

Offline QuakeIV

  • Registered
  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 759
  • Thanked: 168 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #1694 on: April 21, 2021, 02:40:05 AM »
It might be easier to just have a global fuel effeciency modifier