C# Suggestions

[idefelipe]

Would be possible to edit the age of a character? Specially for the first wave that all have 20 years... or change the age of the characters in the beginning

Also, if possible, to include in the event text, the promotion score of new officers. That would be very helpful to notice when a great promise appears.

[Erik L]

I'd like to see a method to specify my own technologies known at the start, but have the game auto-generate ships and troops based on those techs.

[QuakeIV]

Might be kindof nice if you could melt down ground units into a 'reinforcements pool' and then that gets used to replnish depleted units back towards whatever template they were built around.

As a related thing, the ground units could have a configurable template (default to whatever template they were built from) which determines how they get reinforced.

[Jorgen_CAB]

I think that it would be great if we could turn different sensors types on and off individually on ships. For example there is little to no reason to put large resolution actives on ships as they will reveal your position as soon as you turn them on. Lower resolution scanners on the other hand like 1-10 in resolution is more effective as the type of craft they tries to find usually struggle to have passive good enough to detect them before they are themselves detected by the active sensors so there can be a reason to use them and not large resolution scanners that will guarantee to reveal you long before you detect anything with that active sensor.

In addition to this I might also think it is time for an upgrade to how hangars work too... it simply is too easy to deploy just about anything with hangars and rely on them for just about anything. In my opinion hangars simply is too powerful and basically is more like a modular compartment than an actual hangar. It is too easy to use them as a compartment to hold modular vessels, sensor options, weapons and everything is perfectly interchangeable with any size, type and configurations. We have advances and rather intricate mechanics for fuel, supplies and ordnance but hangar operations and types are quite free, too dynamic and effective.

hangars should simply be a module where you add certain abilities such as max docking size, launch/recovery capability, ability to reload ordnance, maintenance of weapon versus say sensor system. It should be much cheaper and less space requirement to have say two bays that accommodate two 500t survey shuttles or four 300t recovery shuttles or servicing 20 300t missile fighter-bombers that need a whole different types of maintenance, space for quick reloading of ordnance and fuel as well as rapid launch and recovery facilities. There could be a difference between serviceable and storage capacity and the ability to operate offensive fighters. A ship might even have several separate hangar facilities that can do different things.


I don't think this has to be very complex, just that different things should have different costs and take up different amounts of space too accommodate. Launching and recovering crafts should no more complex than it is to refuel or rearm a ship in space.

[Froggiest1982]

I think that it would be great if we could turn different sensors types on and off individually on ships. For example there is little to no reason to put large resolution actives on ships as they will reveal your position as soon as you turn them on. Lower resolution scanners on the other hand like 1-10 in resolution is more effective as the type of craft they tries to find usually struggle to have passive good enough to detect them before they are themselves detected by the active sensors so there can be a reason to use them and not large resolution scanners that will guarantee to reveal you long before you detect anything with that active sensor.

In addition to this I might also think it is time for an upgrade to how hangars work too... it simply is too easy to deploy just about anything with hangars and rely on them for just about anything. In my opinion hangars simply is too powerful and basically is more like a modular compartment than an actual hangar. It is too easy to use them as a compartment to hold modular vessels, sensor options, weapons and everything is perfectly interchangeable with any size, type and configurations. We have advances and rather intricate mechanics for fuel, supplies and ordnance but hangar operations and types are quite free, too dynamic and effective.

hangars should simply be a module where you add certain abilities such as max docking size, launch/recovery capability, ability to reload ordnance, maintenance of weapon versus say sensor system. It should be much cheaper and less space requirement to have say two bays that accommodate two 500t survey shuttles or four 300t recovery shuttles or servicing 20 300t missile fighter-bombers that need a whole different types of maintenance, space for quick reloading of ordnance and fuel as well as rapid launch and recovery facilities. There could be a difference between serviceable and storage capacity and the ability to operate offensive fighters. A ship might even have several separate hangar facilities that can do different things.


I don't think this has to be very complex, just that different things should have different costs and take up different amounts of space too accommodate. Launching and recovering crafts should no more complex than it is to refuel or rearm a ship in space.

About the Hangars, I was thinking something too. I think that they should work more like launchers and pods and or have a launcher and a tonnage similar to what you said.

So for instance you would design your Hangar for storage of units and then a launcher/door able to fit only a specific displacement or less.

You will end up with 12000 ton hangar and laucher/door for 1000 ton displacement.

But I think will really be hard...either to code and manage.

[Jorgen_CAB]

I think that it would be great if we could turn different sensors types on and off individually on ships. For example there is little to no reason to put large resolution actives on ships as they will reveal your position as soon as you turn them on. Lower resolution scanners on the other hand like 1-10 in resolution is more effective as the type of craft they tries to find usually struggle to have passive good enough to detect them before they are themselves detected by the active sensors so there can be a reason to use them and not large resolution scanners that will guarantee to reveal you long before you detect anything with that active sensor.

In addition to this I might also think it is time for an upgrade to how hangars work too... it simply is too easy to deploy just about anything with hangars and rely on them for just about anything. In my opinion hangars simply is too powerful and basically is more like a modular compartment than an actual hangar. It is too easy to use them as a compartment to hold modular vessels, sensor options, weapons and everything is perfectly interchangeable with any size, type and configurations. We have advances and rather intricate mechanics for fuel, supplies and ordnance but hangar operations and types are quite free, too dynamic and effective.

hangars should simply be a module where you add certain abilities such as max docking size, launch/recovery capability, ability to reload ordnance, maintenance of weapon versus say sensor system. It should be much cheaper and less space requirement to have say two bays that accommodate two 500t survey shuttles or four 300t recovery shuttles or servicing 20 300t missile fighter-bombers that need a whole different types of maintenance, space for quick reloading of ordnance and fuel as well as rapid launch and recovery facilities. There could be a difference between serviceable and storage capacity and the ability to operate offensive fighters. A ship might even have several separate hangar facilities that can do different things.


I don't think this has to be very complex, just that different things should have different costs and take up different amounts of space too accommodate. Launching and recovering crafts should no more complex than it is to refuel or rearm a ship in space.

About the Hangars, I was thinking something too. I think that they should work more like launchers and pods and or have a launcher and a tonnage similar to what you said.

So for instance you would design your Hangar for storage of units and then a launcher/door able to fit only a specific displacement or less.

You will end up with 12000 ton hangar and laucher/door for 1000 ton displacement.

But I think will really be hard...either to code and manage.

I think that might be a bit too restrictive... I was more thinking that hangars had to be researched as a specific module like a magazine or shield where the bigger they are the less certain traits will take up in space so large hangars are more efficient than smaller ones for example. That way if you want a small boat bay at 600t to accomodate three smaller vessels you would designe it as such...

Hangar, storage 600t, launch/recovery 1 access port max 200t size, refuel and maintenance of non weapons system, crew quarters for 40 people. Total size might be say about 1000t or so. If you wanted ordnance handling and weapon maintenance capability the size might be bloated to say 1250t and the cost would be different. You then research these modular hangars and can add one or several on a ship and they act as one large hangar for management properties to simplify things.

Launch/recovery should then take time based on the size of the vessel docking as well as some technology and you also choose how fast the hangar would dock or launch crafts when designing the hangars. There could even be systems on ships themselves to improve dock and launch times as well representing more carrier focused craft over none carrier focused crafts, or the seeped would entirely be dictated by size and the design of the docking craft and not the hangar that would only limit the size and numbers of craft that can dock or launch at the same time to make the choices more interesting.

Docking a 10kt ship into a hangar would likely take a hours while docking a 100t scout perhaps only will take a 5-20 min depending on their design.

For simplicity you should probably only allow one type of hangar on a ship... otherwise you need to also manage which hangar a ship is docking with.

[SevenOfCarina]

Regarding hangars, haven't we had this exact same discussion (or something similar) before? See here. IIRC, Steve wasn't too keen on the idea.

[Jorgen_CAB]

Regarding hangars, haven't we had this exact same discussion (or something similar) before? See here. IIRC, Steve wasn't too keen on the idea.

I think he is mostly concerned about how to solve the docking and launching of crafts and not make it complicated. My idea is not to make that complicated at all just take time based on how the hangars is designed. If you try to dock and launch craft into a hangar the game will just queue them up and land or launch them appropriately... pretty much the same as refuelling and ordnance transfer taking time based on some factors.

It also would make choices for how to build hangars and not make every hangar into a modular slot you can put just anything in. You could for example just build a carrier meant to carry fighters... so you have no refuelling system or maintenance system in them at all and just minimal docking system. They simply would be a freighter system for parasites... or you have light carrier with only refuel and maintenance systems to carry spare fighters and who can service scouts... but they really can't operate fighters for combat but they can store them.

I think there are allot of RP potential and feel to this without making it too complicated.

I also feel that hangars simply is too effective as they can store too much for what they do, missile fighters are extremely effective and could see a slight hit with the nerf hammer. 

[Dreadder]

Commanders can be assigned as an Academy Commandant on any population with at least one military academy. Any type of commander can be assigned with the following restrictions:

1) A civilian administrator must have an Admin Rating equal or greater than the number of military academies at the population
2) A scientist must have a Research Administration rating (new bonus for C# which is the max number of labs) at least five times the number of military academies at the population
3) A naval or ground forces officer must have a rank (with 1 being the lowest rank) at least equal to the number of military academies

Any chance of changing that to a different system, perhaps allowing the top naval rank to command any number of academies?

The problem currently is, that it's impossible to assign academy commander in case where the number of academies is higher than a number of different ranks - in case of Terran Federation ranking for instance 8, while I find myself in a much greater need for officers and therefore academies now that we have a more detailed and complex ground combat and structures, not to mention all the aux bridges, tactical officers and so on.

[Barkhorn]

Suggestion: Stop automatically adding a bridge when a ship is over 1000 tons.  I'm fine with requiring a bridge on ships over 1000 tons, but don't do that for us automatically.  It's very annoying when fine-tuning FAC's to constantly have to remove the bridge every time I add one too many fuel tanks.

[Dreadder]

Would it be possible to have an option to somehow make the date/timestamp in the event log more visible/distinguishable from actual events or even better a button to jump to the start of the last increment log?

I like to have my ground combat reports detailed but that unfortunately sometimes means hundreds of events per date, so scrolling back to the start of the increment can be a bit of a chore, especially since it's quite easy to miss the actual start of the increment due to all the scrolling and timestamp looking the same as non-modified event text.

I suppose the easiest way would be to have an option to change text/background colour of the timestamp, same as there is for events, or perhaps underlining the timestamp, though "Jump to the start of the last increment" button would still be godsend.

[Barkhorn]

You can set the color of events by type in the event window. 

[Dreadder]

You can set the color of events by type in the event window.

I know. I am talking about the date/timestamp at the beggining of increment log which can't be modified/coloured the same way events can.

[skoormit]

You can set the color of events by type in the event window.

I know. I am talking about the date/timestamp at the beggining of increment log which can't be modified/coloured the same way events can.

I suppose if you modify the color of all the event types, then the timestamp will be the only one left as the default.
That might suit your purposes for the time being, but I agree that in cases like these (dozens or hundreds of events in a single increment) it would be nice to have a way to quickly jump to the beginning of an increment, or to the previous increment.

[Dreadder]

I suppose if you modify the color of all the event types, then the timestamp will be the only one left as the default.
That might suit your purposes for the time being, but I agree that in cases like these (dozens or hundreds of events in a single increment) it would be nice to have a way to quickly jump to the beginning of an increment, or to the previous increment.

I actually tried something similar and while it's still better than nothing, I still often managed to miss a timestamp, due to it being inconspicuous while everything else was visually just screaming for attention.