Author Topic: C# Aurora Changes Discussion  (Read 441956 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline baconholic

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • b
  • Posts: 61
  • Thanked: 2 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #315 on: November 02, 2016, 03:38:34 PM »
Currently, there is a way to "mothball" a ship. You simply scrap the entire ship and store the parts. When time comes, you can rebuild the ship in 1-2 months, as long as your ship isn't made entirely out of armor.

That being said, I don't oppose to a mothball option in the future. Maybe add an extra 5 days wait time to reactivate the ship to account for the time to gather new crews and do boot up/system check stuff.
 

Offline Erik L

  • Administrator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 5654
  • Thanked: 366 times
  • Forum Admin
  • Discord Username: icehawke
  • 2020 Supporter 2020 Supporter : Donate for 2020
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
    Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #316 on: November 02, 2016, 03:44:05 PM »
Currently, there is a way to "mothball" a ship. You simply scrap the entire ship and store the parts. When time comes, you can rebuild the ship in 1-2 months, as long as your ship isn't made entirely out of armor.

That being said, I don't oppose to a mothball option in the future. Maybe add an extra 5 days wait time to reactivate the ship to account for the time to gather new crews and do boot up/system check stuff.
Mothballing was in the game circa v2 to v3. Steve pulled it out for reasons. It's buried in the Mechanics folder most likely.

Offline schroeam

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • s
  • Posts: 217
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • "Let's try a new strategy, let the Wookiee win"
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #317 on: November 02, 2016, 04:12:30 PM »
Mothballing was in the game circa v2 to v3. Steve pulled it out for reasons. It's buried in the Mechanics folder most likely.

My God man!!  Your memory is incredible!  Do you realize how long ago that was? 
 

Offline TCD

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • T
  • Posts: 229
  • Thanked: 16 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #318 on: November 02, 2016, 04:37:39 PM »
I'm interested in why people are so bothered about mothballing? What's the big attraction vs just parking them around your home planet? Is is just to save some money/minerals on maintenance?
 

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2781
  • Thanked: 1048 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #319 on: November 02, 2016, 04:41:27 PM »
Btw, I have played Aurora for a while and don't know that missiles are clearly better.
Strategically they aren't. Tactically they are. It is entirely doable and fairly easy, to create missile swarms that neither spoilers nor NPRs can defend against. That's the sort of thing I mean. I certainly see the appeal in min/maxing and there is nothing wrong with it, I certainly do it every now and then. Just that Steve has a limited time available for Aurora development and I wouldn't wish him to "waste" that time in trying to find ultimate balance between various systems and playstyles, or combat exploits.

I'm interested in why people are so bothered about mothballing? What's the big attraction vs just parking them around your home planet? Is is just to save some money/minerals on maintenance?
Yeah, mothballing is both a viable thing in the real world and is occasionally used as a dramatic thing in SF - can your active fleet buy you time enough so that you can bring out all those mothballed ships?
 

Offline Borealis4x

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 717
  • Thanked: 141 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #320 on: November 02, 2016, 05:02:22 PM »
I think that your money/debt and monthly expenditure/profit should be displayed front and center and not be buried beneath menus. I didn't even knowmoney was a thing until a few hours in my second game...
 

Offline Tree

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 143
  • Thanked: 27 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #321 on: November 02, 2016, 05:11:39 PM »
I think that your money/debt and monthly expenditure/profit should be displayed front and center and not be buried beneath menus. I didn't even knowmoney was a thing until a few hours in my second game...
Huh, there's a whole "Wealth/Trade" tab in the Population and Production/F2 window, in the title of which you also see your current racial wealth and change from last turn.
 

Offline Borealis4x

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 717
  • Thanked: 141 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #322 on: November 03, 2016, 01:26:07 AM »
Huh, there's a whole "Wealth/Trade" tab in the Population and Production/F2 window, in the title of which you also see your current racial wealth and change from last turn.

Its not a localized resource like minerals so having it on the system map makes sense. I'd like to see on the fly how much money I have and am making/losing.
 

Offline Felixg

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • F
  • Posts: 47
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #323 on: November 03, 2016, 04:22:06 AM »
I'm interested in why people are so bothered about mothballing? What's the big attraction vs just parking them around your home planet? Is is just to save some money/minerals on maintenance?

Because systems that are not being used in space can be kept in vacuum and shouldn't randomly implode just because they were built x number of days/months/years ago. You can leave a ship in a stable orbit around the homeworld theoretically for decades without any real breakdowns because there is nothing TO break the stuff down, then bring the ships back up to operation in a couple of days or weeks by re pressurizing them  and rearming/fueling them.
 

Offline Erik L

  • Administrator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 5654
  • Thanked: 366 times
  • Forum Admin
  • Discord Username: icehawke
  • 2020 Supporter 2020 Supporter : Donate for 2020
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
    Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #324 on: November 03, 2016, 08:44:55 AM »
My God man!!  Your memory is incredible!  Do you realize how long ago that was?

Would have been about 8 years or so ago. ;)

Offline Erik L

  • Administrator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 5654
  • Thanked: 366 times
  • Forum Admin
  • Discord Username: icehawke
  • 2020 Supporter 2020 Supporter : Donate for 2020
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
    Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #325 on: November 03, 2016, 08:48:13 AM »
I'm interested in why people are so bothered about mothballing? What's the big attraction vs just parking them around your home planet? Is is just to save some money/minerals on maintenance?

Even parked, they still have a full crew and officer corps. You can move the officers off manually, but no way to move the crew. If you have sufficient maintenance facilities, you won't have ships popping.

Offline TCD

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • T
  • Posts: 229
  • Thanked: 16 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #326 on: November 03, 2016, 10:06:51 AM »
Because systems that are not being used in space can be kept in vacuum and shouldn't randomly implode just because they were built x number of days/months/years ago. You can leave a ship in a stable orbit around the homeworld theoretically for decades without any real breakdowns because there is nothing TO break the stuff down, then bring the ships back up to operation in a couple of days or weeks by re pressurizing them  and rearming/fueling them.
Yes, I can see why you could mothball (although I have seen other arguments against as well), I'm more interested in why you want to mothball. In game terms you save a little bit on maintenance costs, but I've never found them crippling compared with research/industry/ship building anyway. Maybe my games just haven't got big enough for mothballing to seem necessary?
 

Offline 83athom

  • Big Ship Commander
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1261
  • Thanked: 86 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #327 on: November 03, 2016, 10:12:59 AM »
Yes, I can see why you could mothball (although I have seen other arguments against as well), I'm more interested in why you want to mothball. In game terms you save a little bit on maintenance costs, but I've never found them crippling compared with research/industry/ship building anyway. Maybe my games just haven't got big enough for mothballing to seem necessary?
Yah, you really need to mothball as you get bigger/more ships at later techs. You can be paying tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands annually if you don't mothball ships.
Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life.
 

Offline baconholic

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • b
  • Posts: 61
  • Thanked: 2 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #328 on: November 03, 2016, 11:35:52 AM »
Yah, you really need to mothball as you get bigger/more ships at later techs. You can be paying tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands annually if you don't mothball ships.

That's just one of the problem. My major concern is that they used up officers. Unless I  assign officers manually, too many ships will result in newer ships not getting any commanders and free commanders sitting unassigned.
 

Iranon

  • Guest
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #329 on: November 03, 2016, 11:40:54 AM »
You pay 5% of the build cost in maintenance per year (6.25% in the next version), so over 20 (16) years accumulated maintenance costs are equal to initial build cost.
For expensive (for their size) ships, building hangar PDCs may make sense. This makes sense in particular for ships that were considered fast in their prime:

A battlecruiser 3 engine generations out of date may be thoroughly obsolete, but still able to make a meaningful contribution and keep up with the current battle line.
By current standards, its running costs are exorbitant compared to its capability though. Useful to take out of mothball if available and we expected a major battle, but not something we'd like to keep around all the time... without hangar PDCs, we'd have scrapped it long ago and built something else instead.

While totally cost-free mothballing may be a bit much, I like how the Great Old Ones can return to active service when there is a need.