Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread

[Shipright]

My academy idea would fix that, you could upgrade individual academies to produce the type and quality of leaders you need.

[alex_brunius]

For example in mu current game there is a 100mm Lightspear (Laser) which requires 1x Duranium  1x Boronide  3x Corundium to manufacture, but the device itsdelf probably also has steel, carbon fiber, plastics and various other component parts that are not accounted for in the game, presumably because the cost of obtaining these components is trivial when compared to the cost of the TN minerals. 

The TN minerals are more like rare earths in manufacturing today - used in small proportions to make devices but having a significant effect on the cost.  For example the use of Neodymium (Nd), Praseodymium (Pr), Samarium (Sm) or Dysprosium (Dy) in creating Magnets or Europium (Eu) and Yttrium (Y) in making LCD displays.  Obaining these elements is not usually difficult, but it can be expensive (because of their geochemical properties, rare earth elements are typically dispersed and not often found concentrated as rare earth minerals in economically exploitable ore deposits)

I always thought that duranium had replaced the role of steel/plastics seeing how it's used in everything and described as the most common ore.

But even if you are right in that the cost of other materials is trivial to TN materials, the volume, weight and location of these material is not. They can't automatically be present everywhere and free in time/cost to move there.


Steel and plastics are not available in infinite quantities on earth either, especially oil used to make plastics is getting harder and harder to find.[/list]

[Jorgen_CAB]

As far as I understand the mass on components are not actually the real mass as in the total weight, it is more a combination or ratio of volume and mass. So the end product of a component will have one mass which is not equal to the mass of the mineral from the start. At least that is they way I have interpreted some posts from Steve that I have read in the past.

So, certain part of ship construction is abstracted and will not really be realistic in terms of real mass and volume. For this we would need both a volume and mass number for each component. Perhaps a stress factor level would also be needed for larger ship construction since stress on a large hull will be worse the more volume you have versus mass and sheer size is also a detrimental factor on a ships ability to manoeuvre with out breaking apart.

[alex_brunius]

As far as I understand the mass on components are not actually the real mass as in the total weight, it is more a combination or ratio of volume and mass. So the end product of a component will have one mass which is not equal to the mass of the mineral from the start. At least that is they way I have interpreted some posts from Steve that I have read in the past.

It doesn't matter if you measure volume or mass, raw materials should still have significantly more of both compared to the final refined product

[Jorgen_CAB]

I don't argue that unrefined ore would have less mass and volume than refined ore. However, there are no indication that what is mined could not also be refined at the same time. So what is shipped could actually be in its refined and pure form (Sorium being the only one we know is not refined).

With that said a construction of Duranium such as infrastructure could certainly have allot more volume than the unrefined Duranium ore, it could be several factors bigger in volume.

In my opinion you can't really know for sure what is what and ships mass is actually not its mass more it's size just noted in mass for convenience since that is a classic way of classify naval vessels in reality. Although speed and fuel usage is then calculated from it's size not its actual weight which become a little weird.

I think it would be a more legitimate question to ask why a cargo ship (or ships with hangars) require as much fuel when fully loaded as when empty. This goes for it's speed as well. The same with missile space, fuel etc.. It works for tugs.

I don't mind the simplicity as it is, but I would not mind that both volume and mass was used as well as different fuel and speed depending in the ordnance, cargo, fuel and flights carried by a ship.

[markus]

A little suggestion:

Could we have an order to "Load Ordnance" from task groups? This would really make reloading from colliers much easier.  I tend to keep my colliers in separate TGs, and now when I need to reload, I have to merge task groups and then reload each ship individually in its details screen.  It would be much, much faster just to use single order for all ships at the same time - just as we have the "Load Ordnance" order at populations.

(Or am I missing something and doing it wrong?)

[Whitecold]

A little suggestion:

Could we have an order to "Load Ordnance" from task groups? This would really make reloading from colliers much easier.  I tend to keep my colliers in separate TGs, and now when I need to reload, I have to merge task groups and then reload each ship individually in its details screen.  It would be much, much faster just to use single order for all ships at the same time - just as we have the "Load Ordnance" order at populations.

(Or am I missing something and doing it wrong?)

I don't have Aurora on this computer to check it, but if you designate the collier as such in the design screen, it should add reload orders to the Task Group

[Paul M]

A minor one:  have the generated messages about an officer check their sex...so it isn't automatically "his" when "her" would be more appropriate.

[Erik L (OP)]

A minor one:  have the generated messages about an officer check their sex...so it isn't automatically "his" when "her" would be more appropriate.

This "feature" has been in there since the beginning. I'd certainly like to see that check also performed.

[metalax]

The ability to edit, delete or obsolete Hull types. - Easily 80% of the list is populated by types that I will never use, and many of the ones that I do use I would prefer to be able to assign my own abbreviation.

Buttons to open the turret and missile design screens from the class design window. - I realize this may be difficult as there is limited space left on that screen.

Add SM Instant button on the missile and turret screens in the same fashion as on the component design screen.

On the Geological Survey Report screen, would it be possible to add a column indicating if the ground survey has been completed? Similarly on the System View window.

Is it possible to have the Assign Parent Headquarters dropdown on the ground units screen sort alphabetically?

Would it be possible to have an option to have ground units labelled with a separate count for each unit type rather than one count for all ground units?

[Rolepgeek]

You can mark class designs as obsolete. Components too. Delete them, as well. Edit them, if there isn't a shipyard producing them.

[Erik L (OP)]

You can mark class designs as obsolete. Components too. Delete them, as well. Edit them, if there isn't a shipyard producing them.

Hull types are quite different than class designs.

I think most of us here refer to hull type when we say "cruiser", "frigate", "science vessel", etc. Class designs obviously are the specific designs. The droplist showing hull types is not filtered by game. So if you add a type, and start a new game, it shows up.

[Rolepgeek]

Ah, I see. Yeah, that would be good then, since I keep seeing class names in russian on mine.

[Erik L (OP)]

Ah, I see. Yeah, that would be good then, since I keep seeing class names in russian on mine.

That's Steve's fault

[Erik L (OP)]

The ability to edit, delete or obsolete Hull types. - Easily 80% of the list is populated by types that I will never use, and many of the ones that I do use I would prefer to be able to assign my own abbreviation.

Actually, deletion is probably a bad idea. If the designations were linked to a game, then I can support that. But I think the NPR also use those designations. So game and race linked.