C# Aurora Changes Discussion

[Zincat]

Uh, and what's wrong with more of the same?

I would NOT want Aurora to be some smegty real time game. It is more than fine as it is. Basically turn based, with variable length turns.


I would like a better pause control. Letting us choose what pauses the game would be nice.

[MagusXIX]

Because the backend of a game where everything has to run in realtime is going to be completely different from a backend where you can expect to perform all the calculations and database work only when the turn (or in this case, time) is incremented?

Not necessarily. It all depends on how it's programmed. Real-time games still operate in 'ticks' or 'turns.' The only real difference is that real-time games tend to have very small 'ticks' (turns) of much less than a second, and continue to advance the ticks at a steady rate unless the user pauses or otherwise speeds/slows the rate at which ticks occur. In Aurora a 'tick' is 5 seconds.

I've never had the chance to look at Aurora's underlying code, but my best guess based on how it's played is that it operates in terms of ticks, where some processes are set to happen every one tick and others (like the production cycle) are set to other lengths. If this is the case, changing the back end to a pausable real-time system (kinda like a Paradox grand strategy game) shouldn't require too terribly much refactoring. If Aurora isn't set up like that, however, then I have no idea.

Another way to do real-time, which would be much harder for Aurora, would be to use an event-based system, where the code is always listening for an event to happen - like "Construction of 5,000 Infrastructure on Earth complete," at which point whatever code is written around that event would fire and run semi-asynchronously while the main body of code continues to listen for more events. This isn't a 'turn' or 'tick' based system, which has its advantages and disadvantages, and as a result I believe would be much more difficult to implement than steadily advancing turns/ticks - assuming that Aurora's code is already set up to handle things in ~5 second increments.

EDIT: Of course, either way is still an assload of work and Steve's time is almost certainly better spent on other aspects of the game at the moment.

[ardem]

Aurora is too detailed to do real time, you just could not give the game justice to get everything done in a real time fashion. Also next thing if it was real time then we see the dumbing down or automation of the game. Because of the fact you cannot control everything.

HOWEVER is there is to be any realtime, my recommendation is only for the 5 sec tick option, which instead of the current select the number of tick to happen it just is 5 sec on and 5 sec off button, this would work better in this version due to speed improvements and would make battles a little more easier. I never know how many ticks to do and the tick off button is not very responsive when you have more then you wanted ticks and need to turn it off.

[Bughunter]

User input & the gui would probably take more work adapting to real-time, not the backend. But as every one else seems to agree we don't really want realtime anyway. A way to skip ahead a bit during combat however would be nice.

[Barkhorn]

You should put this in the suggestions thread.

[Seolferwulf]

There's no need for the game to run in real time.
It's fine as it is right now.

Just imagine if you couldn't skip time when starting a new game. . .  you'd have to wait forever for the essential techs and nothing else to do while waiting.

[boggo2300]

Aurora is too detailed to do real time, you just could not give the game justice to get everything done in a real time fashion. Also next thing if it was real time then we see the dumbing down or automation of the game. Because of the fact you cannot control everything.

HOWEVER is there is to be any realtime, my recommendation is only for the 5 sec tick option, which instead of the current select the number of tick to happen it just is 5 sec on and 5 sec off button, this would work better in this version due to speed improvements and would make battles a little more easier. I never know how many ticks to do and the tick off button is not very responsive when you have more then you wanted ticks and need to turn it off.

And more importantly RTS games are usually about as strategic as a game of hockey

[Hazard]

Steve?

Could you consider a toggle in the Class Design window to decide if the power supply goes for the energy hogs first or last? That way, if you design a ship with mixed energy weapons you can decide whether PD capacity is more important or the ability to fire back at the enemy ships.

[TCD]

Steve?

Could you consider a toggle in the Class Design window to decide if the power supply goes for the energy hogs first or last? That way, if you design a ship with mixed energy weapons you can decide whether PD capacity is more important or the ability to fire back at the enemy ships.

Or a new option in the combat control screen? I agree that having to choose between changing your PD or your particle lance would be very nice.

[Tuna-Fish]

Steve?

Could you consider a toggle in the Class Design window to decide if the power supply goes for the energy hogs first or last? That way, if you design a ship with mixed energy weapons you can decide whether PD capacity is more important or the ability to fire back at the enemy ships.

You save power for the weapons you want by not cycling the ones you don't want.  I don't see much point in adding extra UI for this.

[Hazard]

You save power for the weapons you want by not cycling the ones you don't want.  I don't see much point in adding extra UI for this.

A class wide toggle during design saves on later micromanagement.

[TMaekler]

I don't know how much work it would be to implement, but a system for managing multiplayer games as some kind of administrator would be nice. A system where the relevant part of the game data could be send to all participating players and they thereby could see the state of their empire and make decisions which then are send back as a protocol file which aurora then could read and implement.

[TCD]

I don't know how much work it would be to implement, but a system for managing multiplayer games as some kind of administrator would be nice. A system where the relevant part of the game data could be send to all participating players and they thereby could see the state of their empire and make decisions which then are send back as a protocol file which aurora then could read and implement.

I don't see how that would work with the time system as it stands? I mean, fine for monthly updates, but what happens if, say, two players out of 6 are fighting, do you make everyone go through 5 sec increments? Who decides when to move to 30s increments etc?

[Barkhorn]

Its a shame, but yes.  Everyone has to use 5 second increments.  Much like how if you play Europa Universalis 4 in multiplayer, the speed is set to the slowest speed any play wants.

As for who decides when to switch to 30s; everyone.  If you've played Dominions 4, that is how increments should progress.  In Dom4, turns are simultaneous just like Aurora's increments, everyone plays at once.  In Dom4, the next turn is not started until all players have clicked "End Turn".  In Aurora, this would also allow people to set what increment they wanted every turn and the game would use the shortest one anyone selected.

[QuakeIV]

I think it could be workable if fleet engagements could be better automated.  If people are scratching their chin for ten minutes while setting up targets before agreeing to start the next increment then I agree that that would never be viable.

Maybe a system where you could introduce players into a single player campaign, and to let them carry out fleet battles with only the involved combatants online for the engagement?