Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
C# Suggestions / Re: Sorium as a strategic weakness
« Last post by Scandinavian on Today at 06:28:33 AM »
There's also functionally unlimited surface area on Earth, but this does not mean that fuel can simply be dumped in any conveniently located ravine, nor munitions stacked in any old fenced-in field. At least not if you want it back in a functional state. Even mineral ores will degrade or wash away if you leave them exposed, though you can get away with a lot less care for many of those (especially if you don't have to deal with atmosphere or pilfering population). The point isn't that you run out of space to put the stuff; it is that we might want to model the facilities required to store and handle it in an orderly manner that makes it not degrade or go missing.
2
C# Suggestions / Re: Sorium as a strategic weakness
« Last post by Garfunkel on Today at 05:54:44 AM »
Limiting storage makes no sense. Even a small asteroid can hold basically infinite amount of fuel or MSP or missiles. This comes up every time someone suggests putting engines on an asteroid to move them and we do the math and people get surprised how massive and big even small asteroids are. Aurora doesn't model the tiny rocks, after all.

This isn't really a problem because of the new spoilers coming in the next version.
3
C# Suggestions / Re: Sorium as a strategic weakness
« Last post by Bluebreaker on Today at 04:22:51 AM »
The new spoiler race coming in v2.0 will go much further towards motivating the use of guard detachments than this proposal, simply because it will bypass the usual jump point network entirely.

I have completely changed the way I distribute forces because of this threat. The forces involved may be small, but they can wreak havoc in an unprotected system. Therefore I am guarding fuel harvesters, terraformers, smaller colonies, etc.. In my current campaign, I have mobile forces and maintenance facilities setup in fifteen different systems.
Doesn't feel a bit overwhelming having to manage so many dispersed units? Or you design those ships to require minimal babysitting?
4
C# Suggestions / Re: Sorium as a strategic weakness
« Last post by Steve Walmsley on Today at 04:10:18 AM »
The new spoiler race coming in v2.0 will go much further towards motivating the use of guard detachments than this proposal, simply because it will bypass the usual jump point network entirely.

I have completely changed the way I distribute forces because of this threat. The forces involved may be small, but they can wreak havoc in an unprotected system. Therefore I am guarding fuel harvesters, terraformers, smaller colonies, etc.. In my current campaign, I have mobile forces and maintenance facilities setup in fifteen different systems.
5
C# Suggestions / Re: Sorium as a strategic weakness
« Last post by Scandinavian on Today at 04:08:25 AM »
Fuel/maintenance/munitions/minerals storage could be a function of the buildings that produce or consume the stored product (mines, factories, maintenance facilities, etc.), the buildings that let you transship them (spaceports, transfer hubs), and amount of infra on the planet (with populated planets automatically converting trade goods infra to planetside infra if they run near their storage capacity). You should probably be allowed to remove non-infrastructure storage generating buildings, even if they would put you over storage capacity (just to avoid micro hell), but you should be required to either discard or lift out excess stores before you can remove infrastructure.

A fringe benefit would be that it would become feasible to make default and conditional orders like "move to nearest planet with less/more than % stockpile and transfer cargo," allowing you to automate the more tedious aspects of intra-empire logistics.
6
C# Suggestions / Re: Sorium as a strategic weakness
« Last post by alex_brunius on Today at 03:48:10 AM »
Problem is that if you want to limit planetary fuel storage, you are opening can of worms. If the fuel storage is limited, should mineral storage and maintenance storage also be limited? And what about missiles. Do you also need planetary magazines to store your missile production?

Where one sees a can of worm another sees opportunities :)

I think the issue most players have with these unlimited storages is the ability to dump billions of liters of fuel, millions of tons of minerals, hundreds of thousands of missiles and maintanance supply on any small rock.

So if one were to consider improving the situation then perhaps a good approach would be to start with only allowing bodies above X millions pop unlimited storage space.
7
C# Suggestions / Re: Sorium as a strategic weakness
« Last post by Black on Today at 02:31:47 AM »
Problem is that if you want to limit planetary fuel storage, you are opening can of worms. If the fuel storage is limited, should mineral storage and maintenance storage also be limited? And what about missiles. Do you also need planetary magazines to store your missile production?
8
C# Suggestions / Re: Sorium as a strategic weakness
« Last post by alex_brunius on Today at 01:58:32 AM »
If you wanted to make sorium a strategic weakness I think the best way to do it might actually be by limiting storage rather than production. Personally I pretty much just build a ton of harvesters and have a tanker constantly grabbing their fuel and dropping it on the nearest colony with its infinite fuel capacity, which means that yeah, losing my fuel harvesters is annoying, but only in the sense that "gah, now I have to rebuild these things sometime in the next three decades."

An interesting middle ground might be to give AI ( and players ) a way to detect and blow up your planetary fuel dumps from orbit... Although all it would acomplish is probably moving the fuel dump back to your capital / closest well protected base instead.

If, say, each spaceport could hold 10 million liters of sorium and then tankers would fail to unload any excess, and fuel harvesters/refineries stopped depleting sorium when full (harvesters may do this already, I'm not sure), that would make having forward bases for fuel harvesting a bit more important, and losing production considerably more dire. On the other hand it would also increase micromanagement, so it's probably worth considering if that tradeoff would actually be worth it.

It's definitely an interesting design decision.

Arguments against making storage limited:
- It would add more micromanagement
- Could be frustrating when all storage is filled up and you either get errors or deplete sorium for no reason ( assuming fuel production is not automatically stopped ).

Arguments for making storage limited:
- It doesn't make much sense (IMO) that fuel storage costs you minerals and production to build in ships and space stations, but is free on planets.
- It would add an interesting gameplay decision when it comes to how much you invest in storage vs production.
- It would make both harvesters and tankers alot more valuable assets as the fuel is not just of tactical importance but having someplace to store it is also of strategic value.
- It would make dispersed harvesting, planetary refining and storage more valuable to protect from loss of all fuel production with limited storage.

I think I'm slightly leaning for limiting fuel storage actually since it would add logistical/strategic depth and seems like alot more "high level" / less micro than much of the other logistical & fuel depth added in C# ( transfer time for fuel or on way refueling mechanics for example ).

A "hacky" quick way to implement it might be to have any fuel storage on a body above say 10 million lose X% per year to "evaporation" which would act as a soft limiter ( the cost of storage is paid in the resource being stored basically ).

9
C# Suggestions / Re: Sorium as a strategic weakness
« Last post by Bremen on Today at 12:29:59 AM »
If you wanted to make sorium a strategic weakness I think the best way to do it might actually be by limiting storage rather than production. Personally I pretty much just build a ton of harvesters and have a tanker constantly grabbing their fuel and dropping it on the nearest colony with its infinite fuel capacity, which means that yeah, losing my fuel harvesters is annoying, but only in the sense that "gah, now I have to rebuild these things sometime in the next three decades."

If, say, each spaceport could hold 10 million liters of sorium and then tankers would fail to unload any excess, and fuel harvesters/refineries stopped depleting sorium when full (harvesters may do this already, I'm not sure), that would make having forward bases for fuel harvesting a bit more important, and losing production considerably more dire. On the other hand it would also increase micromanagement, so it's probably worth considering if that tradeoff would actually be worth it.
10
Привет. К сожалению, только английский.
(И, имея собственный опыт разработки мгогоязычных интерфейсов - прекрасно понимаю, почему Стив этого делать не хочет. Количество мороки возрастает вдвое.)
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk