Author Topic: Possible game tweaks for Newtonian games  (Read 4995 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Aurora Designer
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • S
  • Posts: 7023
  • Thanked: 1857 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: Possible game tweaks for Newtonian games
« Reply #30 on: December 27, 2011, 06:15:26 AM »
Thanks for the various suggestions on shipyards. I don't think I like my original idea any more :)

I like the suggestions of having shipyard components and allowing disassembly/re-assembly and transportation of the components. I think I will probably go for three component types. The Shipyard Hub Module, the Slipway Module and the Shipyard Capacity Module. Construction factories would produce the modules and they would be assembled/disassembled by construction factories or engineers or perhaps some new ship-based mobile construction module. A basic single slipway shipyard with a 1000 ton capacity would consist of one of each module. Each additional Capacity module would add 1000 tons of capacity. Each additional slipway module would sub-divide the overall capacity. In effect, the slipway modules are a way to wall off different sections of the shipyard to build a larger number of smaller ships.

For example, you assemble a shipyard with a hub module, two slipway modules and twelve capacity modules. This is a 6000 ton capacity shipyard with two slipways. If you add an additional slipway module, it becomes a 4000 ton capacity shipyard with three slipways. Removing slipway modules will also be possible, in order to open up the shipyard to accomodate larger vessels. Reconfiguration of the shipyard will only be possible when it is empty and adding/removing slipways or removing capacity would remove any tooling.

With regard to Military vs Commercial, one option is to replicate the three modules for military and commercial. Another option, but I am not sure if it will pass the giggle test, is to allow assembly of shipyards in either Military Configuration or Commercial Configuration. The difference would be that the Military Configuration is a more compact layout used for detailed and complex work while the Commercial Configuration has the capacity modules further apart and configured for bulk construction of less complex systems. A shipyard could also be reconfigured between military/commercial for a cost close to that of disassembly and re-assembly.

Steve
 

Offline chrislocke2000

  • Captain
  • **********
  • c
  • Posts: 444
  • Thanked: 15 times
Re: Possible game tweaks for Newtonian games
« Reply #31 on: December 27, 2011, 06:58:34 AM »
As mentioned before I like this idea of modules and I think going down this route is great for flexibility. I'm just wondering whether, rather than having separate modules to split up total capacity you set this as a configuration option when you build the core module with successive slipway numbers increasing the size / cost of the core module. Hence you can choose to launch a module that has capacity to support a single slipway quickly or take time to build a larger one with more possible slipways. I guess you would then restrict size increases to having enough modules available to add to all of the slipways at the same time.

On the commercial v military shipyards I would think it makes more sense to me that the distinction comes on the costs of the ships rather than two types of shipyard. Ie make the costs of building the shipyards cheaper than current to allow larger capacity ones to be built and then perhaps give them a time efficiency multiplier for building commercial ships v military. That way the additional effort in building the commercial size shipyard is offset by the reduced effort in building the ships themselves. You could also keep the balance by making the tooling costs for that shipyard for a commercial ship v those for a military ship substantially lower.

The other balance consideration here is that you will now be tying up more of your industrial base to increase the shipyards where as currently you can do this concurrently. This might be set off by the fact that the costs of the modules will not be scaling so expansion costs and times will not increase as the shipyards get bigger?
 

Offline ndkid

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • n
  • Posts: 77
Re: Possible game tweaks for Newtonian games
« Reply #32 on: December 27, 2011, 10:19:10 AM »
There are a couple of issues with factory production by default. The first one is remembering what to build ahead of time - it can be annoying to be unable to start a ship because you forgot one component (although as you say some form of automation would help) - the second is that you would need construction factories wherever you have shipyards and if you are trying to disperse shipyards to protect them, that becomes far harder. Perhaps some type of automation without it being the default would be best. Maybe you select a class for the factories and all the components are populated.

Steve

I agree that this can be annoying, but because the build rates of a planet are so much better than of a shipyard because of the greater size of the planet, if you're trying to build ships as quickly as possible in the current system, you have to take on that annoyance... and the larger the ship, the larger the difference in time spent between doing on-planet fabrication and shipyard fabrication.

As to your second point, that isn't quite true. There has to be a colony at the planetoid the shipyard is orbiting, but the construction can be done elsewhere and the components shipped in. Personally, I find that notion leads to interesting tactical choices. Players would almost certainly want to protect that shipment of military engines more than that shipment of infrastructure, and commerce raiding on such a cargo ship would be more valuable. boarding such a cargo ship and stealing a shipment of military hardware would be great for the R&D boys or for your own warship production.

I do agree that this would all be improved with more automation... if I could tell a planet "produce the components needed for X ships of Y class", and it would finagle the percentages to get all quantities produced at approximately the same end date, that'd be a wonderful thing, even under the current game. Having cargo ships that can pick up all components at a planet (which we already have, I think, though maybe you have to chose one component at a time) is good, though some more sophisticated orders might be better.
 

Offline Yonder

  • Registered
  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Y
  • Posts: 261
Re: Possible game tweaks for Newtonian games
« Reply #33 on: December 27, 2011, 11:13:57 AM »
Three Shipyard Components

I like that main idea quite a bit, however I don't really think that the redundancy for Military and Commercial shipyards passes the "giggle test" as you say. However I don't think that you need to make separate versions of all three of the components. What if you had four: SY Hub Module, SY Slipway Module, Military SY Capacity Module, Commercial SY Capacity Module.

You can reuse the same Hub and Slipway modules for both purposes, and just have the capacity modules be different sizes/costs. The downside with this method is that it really doesn't intuitively allow for a way to assign slipways to the Military and Commercial capacities of the same ship. I'm thinking that designing a ship with both Military and Commercial Capacity Modules would give you an error like not having enough crew, however since people may want to make enormous motherships that can build both Military and Commercial ships than that may scrap the idea right there. Of course, people also may want to have Motherships with fighter and frigate construction slipways, and this method precludes that too...

Hmm... I think I thought of a nice way to resolve that issue though, this post is already long though, I'll think it on it over lunch and post again.
 

wilddog5

  • Guest
Re: Possible game tweaks for Newtonian games
« Reply #34 on: December 27, 2011, 11:25:29 AM »
while i like the modular idea for some reason i kept thinking of the research screen... and construcion ships

this is what i came up with:

constructions ships coud be built and transported to other planets like labs are now.

the number of construction ships determine build speed.

the number of construction ships is devided by the number of ships being built. (more ships = linger build time) or could be be done manualy like the labs, either option gives choices

there would have to be a limit on the max number of construction ships per project (1 construction ship per X thousand tons?)

ship building tec research will be construction rate per ship

all this could be done using the planet screen with most of the code already inplace

the retooling for this method could be done by adding to the cost of the first ship (120%?) getting cheaper (4% per ship?) the more ships you build till bace cost (100%) to simulate the builders adjusting to the qewerks of the new design
 

Offline Yonder

  • Registered
  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Y
  • Posts: 261
Re: Possible game tweaks for Newtonian games
« Reply #35 on: December 27, 2011, 11:35:16 AM »
Ok, so this next idea is an extension of the previous one, where you have four Component types: SY Hub Module, SY Slipway Module, SY Military Capacity Module, and SY Commercial Capacity Module.

We'll pretty much ignore the Hub Module, it may just be a large, expensive, crew intensive module.

We are going to treat the Slipway Modules like Fire Controls, and the Capacity Modules like weapons. So ships with a Hub Module will have an additional tab on their menu that lets you manage which Capacities are attached to which Slipways, as well as manage which Slipways are assigned to which ship classes, and what they are doing, etc. I'd imagine that just like our other UI redundancies much of this could be managed from the Planet Production screen of the Colony they were stationed at as well (if we are going to keep the restriction that construction must happen on colonies).

When you select the Slipway and the Capacities (you can't mix Naval and Commercial Capacities at this point) and click "Assign" or whatever, that slipway starts being configured. This could be a mix of the existing system and the Fire Control system, in that there could be a research item that affects the length and cost of shipyard modifications, and it could also (perhaps) be modified by Crew Grade. A similar procedure would be used to assign Slipways to new classes, as well as releasing capacities from slipways to go back to the pool of Capacities on the ship available to be assigned to Slipways. The length of work may also be based on the scale of the change, just like now assigning five capacities to a slipway for the first time would take longer than adding the fifth capacity to a Slipway that already has four. If Crew Grade affects the length of any of these changes, then building ships and retooling yards should both increase Crew Grade.

This 'Fire Control' method would also allow subsequent customization to Slipways down the line, similar to how you also assign ECM to individual Fire Controls. For example if you go down this road, especially if you want ships with minerals in their cargo bays to construct ships on the move (like Carriers in Homeworld) then you will probably want to move "Shipyard Construction" from a Planetary Governor skill to a Naval Officer skill. Then maybe you could assign a 'Shipyard Overseer' to the Hub Module, and then a separate officer to each slipways, similar to how Regional Governors and Planetary Governors work now.

It also opens you up to more out of the box thinking later. For example you could research modules that do things like "Increase Beam Weapon Construction Speed by 10%", "Increase Engine Construction Speed by 10%", "Increase Construction Speed of Ships under 2000 tons by 15%", then put those on a Shipyard Vessel and assign them to particular slipways.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Aurora Designer
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • S
  • Posts: 7023
  • Thanked: 1857 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: Possible game tweaks for Newtonian games
« Reply #36 on: December 27, 2011, 12:08:54 PM »
I like that main idea quite a bit, however I don't really think that the redundancy for Military and Commercial shipyards passes the "giggle test" as you say. However I don't think that you need to make separate versions of all three of the components. What if you had four: SY Hub Module, SY Slipway Module, Military SY Capacity Module, Commercial SY Capacity Module.

You can reuse the same Hub and Slipway modules for both purposes, and just have the capacity modules be different sizes/costs. The downside with this method is that it really doesn't intuitively allow for a way to assign slipways to the Military and Commercial capacities of the same ship. I'm thinking that designing a ship with both Military and Commercial Capacity Modules would give you an error like not having enough crew, however since people may want to make enormous motherships that can build both Military and Commercial ships than that may scrap the idea right there. Of course, people also may want to have Motherships with fighter and frigate construction slipways, and this method precludes that too...

Hmm... I think I thought of a nice way to resolve that issue though, this post is already long though, I'll think it on it over lunch and post again.

Ah! I think might not have been as clear as I could be with my last post. My original idea was to have shipyards as ships but after seeing all the suggestions I had moved away from that idea. The component module idea in my last post has shipyards exactly as they are in standard Aurora - not as a ship. The only real change is their construction and that they can be disassembled into component parts, loaded on freighters and moved somewhere else - or disassembled and the components used for other shipyards. The Manage Shipyard tab would look like it does now, except that shipyards wouldn't be able to build themselves and the assembly/disassembly and construction of constituent modules would be handed by construction factories/engineers.

Although I do like the concept of having SY Hub Module, SY Slipway Module, Military SY Capacity Module and Commercial SY Capacity Module within the framework I explained.

Steve
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Aurora Designer
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • S
  • Posts: 7023
  • Thanked: 1857 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: Possible game tweaks for Newtonian games
« Reply #37 on: December 27, 2011, 12:15:31 PM »
Ah! I think might not have been as clear as I could be with my last post. My original idea was to have shipyards as ships but after seeing all the suggestions I had moved away from that idea. The component module idea in my last post has shipyards exactly as they are in standard Aurora - not as a ship. The only real change is their construction and that they can be disassembled into component parts, loaded on freighters and moved somewhere else - or disassembled and the components used for other shipyards. The Manage Shipyard tab would look like it does now, except that shipyards wouldn't be able to build themselves and the assembly/disassembly and construction of constituent modules would be handed by construction factories/engineers.

Although I do like the concept of having SY Hub Module, SY Slipway Module, Military SY Capacity Module and Commercial SY Capacity Module within the framework I explained.

Steve

Actually, I wonder if it would be smoother in gameplay terms if construction factories built the modules but the modules were assembled on the Manage SY window. Instead of a assembly cost (like putting together a PDC), there would simply be a time factor for moving the component parts of the shipyard into place (or disassembling them). That would make moving and re-assembling a shipyard less of a micromanagement task as you wouldn't have to ensure engineers/factories at the destination or origin.

Steve
 

Offline Brian

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1213
  • Thanked: 2 times
Re: Possible game tweaks for Newtonian games
« Reply #38 on: December 27, 2011, 12:56:14 PM »
Actually, I wonder if it would be smoother in gameplay terms if construction factories built the modules but the modules were assembled on the Manage SY window. Instead of a assembly cost (like putting together a PDC), there would simply be a time factor for moving the component parts of the shipyard into place (or disassembling them). That would make moving and re-assembling a shipyard less of a micromanagement task as you wouldn't have to ensure engineers/factories at the destination or origin.

Steve
I like the reduction of management part.  It also makes sense in that a shipyard even packed up for transport is going to have the resources to put itself back in operational order.  The main requirement would be time to do this.  As an alternative you could have factories/engineers speed up the assembly process but cost extra minerals.  You do afterall have to power all those factories/engineer vehicles so it would make some sense.

Brian
 

Offline chrislocke2000

  • Captain
  • **********
  • c
  • Posts: 444
  • Thanked: 15 times
Re: Possible game tweaks for Newtonian games
« Reply #39 on: December 28, 2011, 04:30:13 AM »
I would agree on the construction piece as well, I think you need to divorce the assembly and disassembly of the slipways from the need for industry in the same location. I would also avoid the need for additional materials as required for PDC assembly which I have never quite understood the requirement for in any case.
 

Offline PTTG

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 125
Re: Possible game tweaks for Newtonian games
« Reply #40 on: December 28, 2011, 10:39:22 AM »
What about planetary motion?

This is a bit of a non-sequitor, but planetary steps are bugging me, particularly when it comes to slow ships. Can planetary motion be divorced from the construction cycle at all?

This really becomes a problem when there are slow ships moving between close planets frequently, such as a freighter from the earth to the moon. If it's an early game ship, perhaps in RP terminology a near-future conventional spacecraft, the trip might take a day or two. However, if it's in flight when earth steps at the end of the week, suddenly it's several weeks away from home!

Of course, as the game progresses it gets less and less serious, but there's still chances for oddities being produced.

I'm not sure how much of a problem it might be to simply move all planets at the same time as ships. Of course there may be hundreds or thousands of planets if asteroid orbits are on. I suppose a compromise might be to treat planets in systems containing ships/populations/etc. as ships, and to only move any other planets under two conditions: every construction cycle, and whenever a ship enters the system they'd be brought up to date for that second.

I can't estimate how much load that would produce, but I do know it would definitely solve any qualms about planets hopping around. And it would make weird planets like Hot Fast Jupiters a little more interesting, since you could watch them spin around their primary every few hours.
 

Offline UnLimiTeD

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • U
  • Posts: 1108
Re: Possible game tweaks for Newtonian games
« Reply #41 on: December 31, 2011, 12:42:18 AM »
Asteroids are fine in this respect, most people don't have them even move.
Planets, yeah; having them move once a day, and every hour if populated, might be an option.^^
I like what you did with the Shipyards, Steve.
Though I also liked the idea of assembling a large yard as one, the flexibility is just more practical.
 

Offline Bremen

  • Commander
  • *********
  • B
  • Posts: 387
  • Thanked: 22 times
Re: Possible game tweaks for Newtonian games
« Reply #42 on: December 31, 2011, 06:38:30 PM »
Will maintenance be tweaked for Newtonian Aurora? It seems like ships will need more space for fuel, and trips will be longer, so it might be a good idea to lengthen maintenance timers for a given amount of engineering spaces.

Alternately, will the default mode for Newtonian games be maintenance off? (Since there's already so much more to keep track of).  I could see this being interesting, with establishing fleet bases out beyond the hyper limit so ships can jump directly into hyperspace.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Aurora Designer
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • S
  • Posts: 7023
  • Thanked: 1857 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: Possible game tweaks for Newtonian games
« Reply #43 on: January 08, 2012, 10:02:50 AM »
What about planetary motion?

This is a bit of a non-sequitor, but planetary steps are bugging me, particularly when it comes to slow ships. Can planetary motion be divorced from the construction cycle at all?

This really becomes a problem when there are slow ships moving between close planets frequently, such as a freighter from the earth to the moon. If it's an early game ship, perhaps in RP terminology a near-future conventional spacecraft, the trip might take a day or two. However, if it's in flight when earth steps at the end of the week, suddenly it's several weeks away from home!

Of course, as the game progresses it gets less and less serious, but there's still chances for oddities being produced.

I'm not sure how much of a problem it might be to simply move all planets at the same time as ships. Of course there may be hundreds or thousands of planets if asteroid orbits are on. I suppose a compromise might be to treat planets in systems containing ships/populations/etc. as ships, and to only move any other planets under two conditions: every construction cycle, and whenever a ship enters the system they'd be brought up to date for that second.

I can't estimate how much load that would produce, but I do know it would definitely solve any qualms about planets hopping around. And it would make weird planets like Hot Fast Jupiters a little more interesting, since you could watch them spin around their primary every few hours.

I originally added planetary motion for every increment in Newtonian, although I have since taken it out again due to performance concerns. At the moment when a planet moves during the 5-day increment, the course of any ship or missile heading for the planet (or for something in orbit) is automatically adjusted to head for its new location. I am not really happy with this though so I might go back to the motion every increment. I also should look at predicting the future position of a planet and heading there instead, although this is tricky due to the ship having to accel and decel and not knowing for how long it might coast. I'll attempt this at some point though.

Steve
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Aurora Designer
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • S
  • Posts: 7023
  • Thanked: 1857 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: Possible game tweaks for Newtonian games
« Reply #44 on: January 08, 2012, 10:05:04 AM »
Will maintenance be tweaked for Newtonian Aurora? It seems like ships will need more space for fuel, and trips will be longer, so it might be a good idea to lengthen maintenance timers for a given amount of engineering spaces.

Alternately, will the default mode for Newtonian games be maintenance off? (Since there's already so much more to keep track of).  I could see this being interesting, with establishing fleet bases out beyond the hyper limit so ships can jump directly into hyperspace.

Maintenance is the same at the moment. However, the definition of a commercial engine is now based on the reduction in thrust used to gain extra fuel efficiency (50% or less normal thrust = commercial). Given the need for fuel efficiency, I think more ships will use low thrust engines and qualify as commercial.

Steve
 

 

Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53