Author Topic: C# Aurora Changes Discussion  (Read 441909 times)

0 Members and 6 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline mrwigggles

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 138
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #570 on: March 19, 2017, 03:41:02 AM »
I mean some working statistics like:

Minerals/ Actual/ Mining Year/ Mass Driver Transfer Year/ Used Year
Neutronium/ 12.455t/ 3.445t/ 822t/ 4.115t

Chooseable for "Single Planet" / "System" / "Empire" as well as time spans like "Last Month" / "Last Quarter" / "Last Year". Actually there are several statistics but they are not so useable in my opinion. Basically do what is available for money for all other relevant values.
That kind of read out would be deceptive.  I assume the definition for total, is for bodies that are being mined or have mining facility on them or in orbit. That amount is only psedo useful. Accessibility is the kicker there.

So for that to be something closer to useful, it would need to do a break out of each element at each accessibility.  How much sitting in each stockpile, depending on how things are organized internally, how much in transit. (And these two would be complicated to define with things like solarium harvesters and asteroid miners.) Consumption. Number of manned, unmanned and modules are mining these  elements. And a net estimate of time to depletion for each accessibility.
 

Offline El Pip

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • E
  • Posts: 197
  • Thanked: 165 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #571 on: March 19, 2017, 04:39:13 AM »
While that elaborate suggestion could be useful, I think the point was a simple "Total xx mined" vs "Total xx used" comparison would make it much easier to determine if you even have a problem. If you have half a dozen CMCs and Asteroid Miners in a system, going through and working out annual production from each can be a chore. When spread across several systems it gets ridiculous.

Once you've identified minerals where there is a shortage then a more detailed breakdown could be useful in identifying where to put more mines or whatever. But you already have the GeoSurvey tab so it might just be duplication.

I'd also add /sector/ to the list of groups you can filter by, if you have a couple of major manufacturing centres in the Empire then putting them in different sectors would make it easier to see which has enough minerals and which might not.
 

Offline TMaekler

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1112
  • Thanked: 298 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #572 on: March 19, 2017, 06:25:41 AM »
While that elaborate suggestion could be useful, I think the point was a simple "Total xx mined" vs "Total xx used" comparison would make it much easier to determine if you even have a problem.
Yes, it was just to illustrate my general idea - and you pointed out the problem I wanted to solve: do I have a mineral shortage problem and why? Don't I mine enough because of depletion or do I consume it too fast - and how can I adjust.
 

Offline TMaekler

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1112
  • Thanked: 298 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #573 on: March 23, 2017, 11:04:09 AM »
For the sake of "simplicity" it would be nice to have another ship module: Mass Driver. This module functions like the ground based module, just for ships. Placed near a wormhole it could "massdrive" incoming materials delivered by ships through the wormhole to a destination planet.
Thinking that idea one step further, having a mobile jump gate which receives "Mass Driver Packages" on one side of a wormhole and sends it to a receiving planet on the other side would be even nicer... .

Another idea for the auto-assign-routine: when the routine applies a person to, lets say Frigate 'Bloomington', and during the next turn again want's to assign it to a frigate of the same type, it would be nice if the routine then would keep it on Frigate 'Bloomington' rather than switching it to another one. Not that simple to implement, but, oh well, just suggesting it ;-)
« Last Edit: March 23, 2017, 11:10:50 AM by TMaekler »
 

Offline alex_brunius

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1240
  • Thanked: 153 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #574 on: March 24, 2017, 04:04:13 AM »
For the sake of "simplicity" it would be nice to have another ship module: Mass Driver. This module functions like the ground based module, just for ships. Placed near a wormhole it could "massdrive" incoming materials delivered by ships through the wormhole to a destination planet.
Thinking that idea one step further, having a mobile jump gate which receives "Mass Driver Packages" on one side of a wormhole and sends it to a receiving planet on the other side would be even nicer... .

I'd prefer if it was easier to automate mineral transfers with ships instead, such that they are possible to intercept/raid all along the lines in the future development of the game, and not just at a few strategic points that are easier to defend.
 

Offline TMaekler

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1112
  • Thanked: 298 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #575 on: March 24, 2017, 09:48:15 AM »
The main problem with the ability to attack a supply line (in my opinion) lies with the jump point restriction and their general fork-layout. Within one system you could attack a supply line, but over several systems - generally not possible if there is no "backdoor". If there would be more interconnection between the systems you are right and such a system would widen the possible strategic options.

On the topic of maintenance two ideas:
One: wouldn't it be nice if there was a general option that all ships have to undergo maintenance - which means: civilians also. Maybe at a much slower rate than military ships - but generally private vessels have to be maintained as well. Just for realisms sake... .
Two: When the capacity of the total maintenance is lower than the total tonnage shouldn't there be a priority list which ships should be fully maintained - and only those at the end of the list would not be maintained?
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20350 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #576 on: March 24, 2017, 10:59:25 AM »
The main problem with the ability to attack a supply line (in my opinion) lies with the jump point restriction and their general fork-layout. Within one system you could attack a supply line, but over several systems - generally not possible if there is no "backdoor". If there would be more interconnection between the systems you are right and such a system would widen the possible strategic options.

On the topic of maintenance two ideas:
One: wouldn't it be nice if there was a general option that all ships have to undergo maintenance - which means: civilians also. Maybe at a much slower rate than military ships - but generally private vessels have to be maintained as well. Just for realisms sake... .
Two: When the capacity of the total maintenance is lower than the total tonnage shouldn't there be a priority list which ships should be fully maintained - and only those at the end of the list would not be maintained?

1) That used to be the case in earlier versions but it was removed on the basis that the micromanagement overhead wasn't worth it for the benefit to game play.

2) I did consider that option, although it adds some micromanagement. For example, the ships being maintained would be unlikely to fit exactly into the available capacity, which means you would likely start changing the priority order to make maximum use of the capacity (or I have one ship in partial maintenance), plus there is still availability of MSP to consider. With the way I decided to handle it, all those factors get taken care of without any micromanagement. Besides, you can still order a ship into close orbit, rather than directly to the planet, which means it won't be maintained.
 

Offline Titanian

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • T
  • Posts: 105
  • Thanked: 20 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #577 on: March 24, 2017, 12:40:33 PM »
1) That used to be the case in earlier versions but it was removed on the basis that the micromanagement overhead wasn't worth it for the benefit to game play.
What if they would just cost some amount of wealth to maintain, without any need for maintainance facilities? Or something else that is some kind of cost, but not requiring any management from the player. Currently there is just no incentive to scrap old or unused vessels, as they cost nothing to keep around and might maaaybe get some use in the future. It just looks completely strange that the civilians scrap ships after a few years even if they are still using latest tech, while the government still has the first cargo ships ever produced in service.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2017, 12:43:29 PM by Titanian »
 

Offline Hazard

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • H
  • Posts: 643
  • Thanked: 73 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #578 on: March 24, 2017, 01:22:43 PM »
One option for restricting the infinite use of old ships would be to make maintaining ships take more and more wealth as the ship ages. Maybe by multiplying it by (ship's age in years) squared percent, or by (age in years/maintenance life in years)? This would have issues with FACs and fighters with very short maintenance life spans of course, but IIRC fighters in hangars don't 'age' anyway.
 

Offline TMaekler

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1112
  • Thanked: 298 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #579 on: March 24, 2017, 03:35:14 PM »
You can keep a ship in perfect health if you maintain it properly. No need to make maintenance more demanding with the age of the ship. Aurora is already complex enough (although some might argue that it is not...  ;) )
 

Offline Gyrfalcon

  • Bug Moderators
  • Commander
  • ***
  • G
  • Posts: 331
  • Thanked: 199 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #580 on: March 24, 2017, 04:15:28 PM »
Perhaps an odd idea, but with the new maintainence rules, I think it would be great to have the ability to set ships into mothball status. This allows you to outpace your maintainece capabilities during a war, and at the end put shiosminto a reserve rather then breaking them for scrap. If you later suffer a military reversal, you will have some ships that can be reactivated relatively quickly.
 

Offline El Pip

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • E
  • Posts: 197
  • Thanked: 165 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #581 on: March 24, 2017, 05:40:08 PM »
There would have to be some penalty for a mothballed ship, perhaps a large lag while you re-active and crew the ships or a loss of grade/experience. If not then why wouldn't you keep most of the fleet in mothballs until you see an enemy and then instantly reactivate it.

But in principle I like that sort of idea a lot.
 

Offline Bremen

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 743
  • Thanked: 150 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #582 on: March 24, 2017, 09:24:24 PM »
There would have to be some penalty for a mothballed ship, perhaps a large lag while you re-active and crew the ships or a loss of grade/experience. If not then why wouldn't you keep most of the fleet in mothballs until you see an enemy and then instantly reactivate it.

But in principle I like that sort of idea a lot.

I'd say at the very least, mothballing should reset the grade points and task force training of a ship. Realistically it should probably return the crew to your pool and then take it back when unmothballed, but I don't know how much coding work that would be. I'd guess it should also take maintenance capacity and MSP to un-mothball a ship. Like, it might require 1/10th the maintenance (both in terms of capacity and MSP) while mothballed, but then when unmothballing it it's like overhauling a ship with a year on its maintenance clocks.

Honestly, though, I feel mothballing is probably a bit unnecessary right now. It's a realistic and probably useful feature, but not that useful.
 

Offline mrwigggles

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 138
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #583 on: March 24, 2017, 09:33:59 PM »
I dont think it took very long to unmothball the Ohio battleships into active service.
 

Offline Borealis4x

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 717
  • Thanked: 141 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #584 on: March 25, 2017, 01:47:16 AM »
Are missiles going to be "balanced" or rather are other weapon types going to become more useful in more situations?

I think that railguns should have unlimited range but should be dependent on how advanced your fire control computer is to determine how far away it can shoot accurately. Speed, distance and tonnage should play a role in how accurate the shot is, so at 1 million KM it can shoot a 1000 ton vessel going <500 KM/s at 100% accuracy etc. This would be a low end computer, I believe that beam weapons should be feasible from farther away, with a super advanced fire control being able to fire at a target accurately

I'll also reiterate my idea about being able to size up beam weapon components like you can sensors with tech advancements making them more efficient, not larger.