Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
91
C# Mechanics / Re: Research Specialization Question
« Last post by Efaferal on June 25, 2025, 07:35:45 PM »
Awesome, thanks!
I am just a newbie stumbling through the game trying to learn the mechanics.. so far I am loving it.
92
C# Mechanics / Re: Research Specialization Question
« Last post by nuclearslurpee on June 25, 2025, 06:11:39 PM »
The bonus generated by a scientist doing research in their field is 4x the listed percentage. The bonus for any project outside of their field is the listed percentage.

So a PP scientist with a 25% bonus will research Railgun tech at a 125% rate, whereas the same scientist will research Engine tech at a 200% rate (4 x 25% = 100% bonus).
93
C# Mechanics / Research Specialization Question
« Last post by Efaferal on June 25, 2025, 04:06:13 PM »
I noticed that if I use a scientist for a project not in their specialty, they still generate their research bonus. For instance I can start a game without a scientist having propulsion, so I just uncheck 'matching only' and can select any scientist to head up a propulsion project. It seems that no matter that scientists field his research bonus will be applied to any project he is on.

Is this a bug?
-or-
Is the intended game play that research is ONLY performed by scientists with specialization bonuses in the target field?

Thanks in advance for any input.

94
C# Mechanics / PD ECCM vs Missile ECM
« Last post by Pallington on June 25, 2025, 11:44:35 AM »
If I understand it correctly, the current formula for PD working on a missile with decoys is:

Chance to hit missile = 1 / 1 + 0.2*(# alive decoys)*clamp(Missile ECM - PD ECCM + 5, 0, 5).

In effect, it means that if you aren't confident your ECCM is better than their ECM, you might as well strip ECCM from your PD dedicated BFCs (especially point blank rail/gauss), since the decoys will operate at full efficiency regardless.

So far my testing confirms the upper clamp, that is, a decoy cannot be MORE effective than "the same as a missile," and the lower clamp is fairly obvious.

If that's correct, I find it a little weird. Not difficult by any means, but yet another thing that's a little unintuitive, that i'll have to update all my designs for. If I could tweak the numbers myself I would, but I'm totally unfamiliar with C# decompiling and tweaking so that's a no-go unless there's relevant numbers in the DB... which I doubt, but I'll see soon.

There's two "simple" changes that can be made to make this behave more intuitively. Either, or a combination of both, could be used. Or neither, if this little quirk is desired behavior.

1. Allowing decoys to be bigger than a missile, aka removing the clamp on the upper end. Maybe just swapping clamp 0,x,5 for max 0,x. Maybe making it so that it scales slower when it's "bigger", so maybe 2 ECM vs ECCM advantage is required to make the weight go from 5 to 6, so to speak, then another 2 to go to 7, or maybe another 3 to go to 7. All subject to tuning.

Under this regime, ECCM is a losing game but not playing it is even worse, and by a lot. Not putting ECCM basically makes the PD BFC useless, and turns amm into a decoy sweeper.

2. Shifting the center of the linear section closer towards equal ECM/ECCM. AKA, keeping the clamp 0,5 but changing the base to 3 or 4, so having 1-2 level higher missile ECM gives max bonus and having even ECCM gives tangible (but small) benefit compared to running 0 ECCM.

Under this regime, Missile decoys are worse to begin with, but ECCM now can actually be significant at equal tech (20% reduction if the timings happen to line up well for you and a much higher chance of doing nothing is not "significant" in my eyes). You CAN choose to give up the electronic war if you know you're VERY behind, but if you think you're competitive you can try to fight on this front as well.

For example at C = 3, if you think you're equal tech but actually you're 1 behind, you still reduce decoy effectiveness by 20%. If you ARE equal tech, you reduce decoy effectiveness by 40%. If you're AHEAD, you get even better results. As the missile party, you still get some effectiveness from decoys even at ECM 1, but ECM 2 and 3 now get additional importance as "sealing the deal" vs 0 ECCM skimpers.

Having said all this, once again I stress: if this design quirk is intended behavior, then feel free to ignore this post. I'll look for solutions on my own, because I'm a dials/knobs addict, I can't stop poking at them until it feels just right, and giving up entirely on the electronic war entirely just because your tech isn't strictly better feels VERY wrong to me.

EDIT: Also, ECCM is double RP cost compared to missile ECM. If a species is teching hard into missiles, they will very likely be on par or at most 1 tech (1/4 RP cost) behind on ECM tech. I don't need to point out how this is especially brutal late game or low research, where it basically means you can't really "win" even on the tech side before BFC manufacturing cost comes into play.
95
C# Suggestions / Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.4.0
« Last post by Ush213 on June 25, 2025, 09:26:14 AM »
Hi Steve

Would there be much involved to have the trade goods movable by player ships as a purely role playing excerise. in the scenerio where you want to disable the civs.

In sorta the same question would it be possible to get the civs to move minerals around? even on a small scale. They could use the reserve limit on planets as there method to know when to stop.
96
C# Mechanics / Re: v2.6.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Last post by gpt3 on June 25, 2025, 09:00:06 AM »
The 'pre-TN problem' in coding terms is a huge amount of AI code that assumes certain capabilities on the part of a NPR. I would have to go through all that code and add exceptions for the technology and capabilities that an NPR may or may not possess when that code is accessed and then fix all the resulting bugs. I would also have to get the NPR to assess which of the missing capabilities were most important and prioritise them for construction, research, shipbuilding, etc..

It's possible to do it - it's just a HUGE amount of work.

The Industrial NPR is a way to have the presence of a conventional NPR without having to worry about the above.
Will the industrial NPRs have STO ground units? They could use the new conventional beam weapons and hopefully use the same AI code as regular NPRs and Rahkas.

From a narrative perspective, one could imagine Cold War or modern-day humanity desperately repurposing anti-satellite/asteroid-defense systems to (ineffectively) combat aliens.

http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=13463.msg173751#msg173751
D'oh! Reading comprehension failure on my part.
97
C# Mechanics / Re: v2.6.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Last post by Steve Walmsley on June 25, 2025, 02:59:56 AM »
The 'pre-TN problem' in coding terms is a huge amount of AI code that assumes certain capabilities on the part of a NPR. I would have to go through all that code and add exceptions for the technology and capabilities that an NPR may or may not possess when that code is accessed and then fix all the resulting bugs. I would also have to get the NPR to assess which of the missing capabilities were most important and prioritise them for construction, research, shipbuilding, etc..

It's possible to do it - it's just a HUGE amount of work.

The Industrial NPR is a way to have the presence of a conventional NPR without having to worry about the above.
Will the industrial NPRs have STO ground units? They could use the new conventional beam weapons and hopefully use the same AI code as regular NPRs and Rahkas.

From a narrative perspective, one could imagine Cold War or modern-day humanity desperately repurposing anti-satellite/asteroid-defense systems to (ineffectively) combat aliens.

http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=13463.msg173751#msg173751
98
C# Mechanics / Re: v2.6.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Last post by gpt3 on June 24, 2025, 11:53:18 PM »
The 'pre-TN problem' in coding terms is a huge amount of AI code that assumes certain capabilities on the part of a NPR. I would have to go through all that code and add exceptions for the technology and capabilities that an NPR may or may not possess when that code is accessed and then fix all the resulting bugs. I would also have to get the NPR to assess which of the missing capabilities were most important and prioritise them for construction, research, shipbuilding, etc..

It's possible to do it - it's just a HUGE amount of work.

The Industrial NPR is a way to have the presence of a conventional NPR without having to worry about the above.
Will the industrial NPRs have STO ground units? They could use the new conventional beam weapons and hopefully use the same AI code as regular NPRs and Rahkas.

From a narrative perspective, one could imagine Cold War or modern-day humanity desperately repurposing anti-satellite/asteroid-defense systems to (ineffectively) combat aliens.
99
C# Mechanics / Re: v2.6.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Last post by Garfunkel on June 24, 2025, 07:43:19 PM »
Thanks for adding the conventional -only NPR, that and the conventional weapons are totally up my alley!
100
C# Mechanics / Re: v2.6.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Last post by Steve Walmsley on June 24, 2025, 06:00:38 PM »
The 'pre-TN problem' in coding terms is a huge amount of AI code that assumes certain capabilities on the part of a NPR. I would have to go through all that code and add exceptions for the technology and capabilities that an NPR may or may not possess when that code is accessed and then fix all the resulting bugs. I would also have to get the NPR to assess which of the missing capabilities were most important and prioritise them for construction, research, shipbuilding, etc..

It's possible to do it - it's just a HUGE amount of work.

The Industrial NPR is a way to have the presence of a conventional NPR without having to worry about the above.
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk