Author Topic: Suggestions Thread for v2.0  (Read 82816 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline drakonbane

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • d
  • Posts: 11
  • Thanked: 10 times
Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.0
« Reply #15 on: August 08, 2022, 02:14:03 PM »
A naming theme for just the name without the number.  The Hull Numbers feature is a good enough substitute.

SJW: Added for v2.1
« Last Edit: August 14, 2022, 07:46:23 AM by Steve Walmsley »
 
The following users thanked this post: Kiero

Offline joshuawood

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • j
  • Posts: 48
  • Thanked: 29 times
Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.0
« Reply #16 on: August 08, 2022, 03:32:22 PM »
STO Targeting is pretty tedious when you have multiple types of STO on multiple planets etc.

I have a few suggestions. I doubt all will work together but the easiest set to implement is probably best. 

1: Order them by Planet, Type, Name     
      Right now it's very annoying to find exactly which ones in this list are your lasers and which gauss for example and determining which ones are on which planet makes this doubly so

1.1: Instead of ordering by planet have a drop down at the top where you can choose each body with STOs available and only STOs on that Body show in the list

2: Be able to select multiple STOs and change their fire mode at once with Ctrl and Shift

3: Be able to group STOs all of the same type at a body into groups where you can change the fire mode of them all at once

4: Make Point Defense STOs default to "final fire" Mode instead of target random ship
          A Lot of the Tedium is changing PD STOs to fire at missiles instead
 
5: A button to set All STOs to a fire mode
          A lot of the hassle of STOs is switching from firing at ships to firing at Missiles

6: Have 2 New Modes (or just 1) :   Final Fire Point Defense Then Target random ship (Prioritizes final fire PD then shoots at the Targeted Ship, Like Beam Fire controls already)
                                                    Target Random Ship Then Final Fire Point Defense (Similar but opposite to the other where ships are priority and missiles 2nd)
 
The following users thanked this post: JacenHan, superstrijder15, BAGrimm, nuclearslurpee, Carthar

Offline Destragon

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • D
  • Posts: 151
  • Thanked: 87 times
Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.0
« Reply #17 on: August 08, 2022, 05:50:13 PM »
Just had a small idea when playing around with the tactical map:
- When you have the "Selected Orbit" display option turned on, the orbit of the selected body could be a different colour from orbits of non-selected bodies, to make the selected body stand out more.
- When you click on a body that doesn't have a displayed name, for example you have turned off the names for asteroids, but you clicked on an asteroid on the map, the game could display the name of that body anyway. So you don't have to turn on the names for all bodies when you wanna know the name of a specific one. Also, this name could be coloured differently, like the orbit, to make it stand out more which body you have currently selected.
 
The following users thanked this post: Scandinavian, papent, serger

Offline xenoscepter

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1154
  • Thanked: 317 times
Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.0
« Reply #18 on: August 08, 2022, 06:57:40 PM »
 --- The ability to group STOs and ship bourne Fire Controls alike into "Fire Groups". You can currently already copy and paste FCS settings for from Fleet to Fleet and from a ship class to other classes in same Fleet, but this would allow a group of FCS systems to be assigned target priorities, firing conditions (like "Fire when shields are at X%", "Hold fire if target shields are down.", "Prioritize Ships with Beam Weaponry.", "Target FACs only.") & even set preferred engagement ranges... or a combination of three and/or more!

 --- A simple numerical priority for Ship weapons with regards to power as well as an ability to just... turn off weapons to save power.

 --- Armored Reactors, and hell... just the ability to Armor modules more in general. The Armoured Reactors would make the above suggestion more useful since you could divide up reactors a bit more and worry a little less about them exploding.

 --- Remove the restriction on Direct Support for Ground Formations. I'd like my big ass frakk you Artillery Divisions to attack the enemy when my big ass frakk you Armored Divisions attack, and I'd also like to not need to worry about the size of them in general. IRL, if someone of sufficient authority goes, "Hey, have that unit support that unit." they're not gonna say "No, sorry my unit is too big, and thusly the request is impossible to comply with." (Mostly I just find it annoying without really adding anything. YMMV :P )

 --- The ability to assign Ground Formations to Directly Support other Formations as Attack or Defense elements: Setting one to Direct Support (Attack) means it attacks when the formation it is assigned to does, and targets only the formation that was targeted by the formation it is supporting. Setting one to Direct Support (Defense) just means when said supported formation is attacked, this unit is also attacked and contributes to the defense.

 --- In that vein a Breakthrough Support stance would allow us to make formations that only came into play when an enemy achieves a breakthrough, but would otherwise be counted as Support Line for any other purpose.

 --- Likewise, allow Support and Rear units to actually attack back if a breakthrough occurs. It'd add some usefulness to "guard" units.

 --- Perhaps have "Avoid Combat" not affect Bombardment units in the Bombardment Phase if they are set to Support or Rear? Would make the above more useful since "Guard" units could be set w/o "Avoid Combat" and would count more. AA units in the AA Phase when in the Support or Rear stance should be included in that as well.

That's my 2 cents. Well done on 2.0 Steve! It's fuggin' awesome! ;D
 

Offline Aloriel

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 184
  • Thanked: 90 times
Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.0
« Reply #19 on: August 08, 2022, 08:53:55 PM »
This might be a bit beyond 2.x's capabilities, so maybe for 3.0? Unless it turns out significantly easier than I think LOL

The idea is in two parts...

First, I would like to see where you can designate the rank of the CO of a ship, and other potential positions on a ship (SCI, TAC, etc). If we could do this, we could extend the rank structure (if desired) to include lower ranks. Right now, they'd have nothing to do of course...

That's where idea #2 comes in. Misc Components currently are pure flavor. What if we could assign an officer with a minimum and maximum rank to them? With this in mind, we could create a component that's called Yeoman or Bosun, or any other common ship position in today's navy. These would be positions within the ship that allow officers to have an organic climb through the ranks. You can see their history of assignments and be all like "Oh! Yeoman Rand's the captain of a destroyer now! Nice!"
Sarah
Game Developer in Unity and UE4 and 5
 

Offline nuclearslurpee

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2960
  • Thanked: 2222 times
  • Radioactive frozen beverage.
Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.0
« Reply #20 on: August 08, 2022, 09:48:31 PM »
I would love a second pass on the ground combat mechanics, especially an overview of air combat is certainly needed.

Seconded.

Quote
The one other thing I would like is some sort of combat width system so you can't engage with ALL of your forces against a much smaller force.

I think a "combat width" system would have some problems, frankly a much smaller force should be surrounded and annihilated not allowed to hole up and take out the enemy peacemeal. It would create a metagame where heavy armor (either vehicle or IFN power armor) is dominant against anything lighter - if a formation of 12-armor tanks is limited to only fight up to 3x its size you can see the problem readily.

What I would like to see, though, is that formations which fire at each other have a good chance to (1) continue firing at each other in successive rounds and (2) fire back at each other defensively. This would not have a significant mechanical effect (at least on average, there would probably be a lot more variance though), but would be great for writing combat narratives if, say, the 153rd Regiment attacks an enemy tank formation at dawn and continues ambushing them throughout the day instead of randomly shooting at an enemy infantry platoon in the next increment.


Create (or allow stabilization of) LaGrange points for secondary stars in a system.  They are created for super-jovians automatically so should logically be created for dwarf stars as well.

I'm not sure this would have a lot of use, as the LPs in Aurora do not save any distance traveled to a distant body due to the 60-degree offset. LPs are most useful for traveling between the planetary systems of different components and sometime shortening the distance between JPs when the LPs line up fortuitously.
 

Offline bankshot

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • b
  • Posts: 191
  • Thanked: 48 times
Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.0
« Reply #21 on: August 08, 2022, 11:32:14 PM »
I have explored about 55 systems in my current 1.13 game and this would have been very useful on two out of five 4-star systems. 

System Managua

Primary G6-V

Star B K5-V  - orbits A at distance 282B km
Star C L5-VII - orbits B at distance 39B km
Star D L3-Vii - orbits A at distance 2.4B km

Star A has only one terrestrial world, not large enough to have a Lagrange point to stabilize.  But if Stars C and D had a Lagrange points I could use it to jump between A and B, saving 80% of the distance. 


System Canberra

Primary G8-V
Star B G9-V orbits A at distance 159B km
Star C L1-VII orbits A at distance 645M km
Star D T2-VII orbits B at distance 360M km

Jumping from A/D to B/C would turn 159B km into about 1B km, allowing access to the habitable worlds around B


And three more 4 star systems following the same pattern but without any planets orbiting stars B/C/D so no reason to jump there. 

System Haukon

Star B orbits the primary at 81B km
Star C orbits B at 2.6B km
Star D orbits A at 6.9B km

Again jumping from A/D to BC would drastically cut distances.  Although in this case there isn't anything to jump to (no planets, just comets) so no need to jump. 

System Kakrai is another 4 star system, same pattern but nothing orbiting B/C/D.

Star B orbits at 14.4B
Star C orbits B at 465M
Star D orbits A at 3.3B

System Ugroth is a 4 star system, same pattern but no planets orbiting B/C/D. 

Star B orbits at 12.9B
Star C orbits A at 525M
Star D orbits B at 413M
 
The following users thanked this post: nuclearslurpee

Offline Scnaeg

  • Gold Supporter
  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • *****
  • Posts: 54
  • Thanked: 91 times
  • Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
    2023 Supporter 2023 Supporter : Donate for 2023
Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.0
« Reply #22 on: August 09, 2022, 01:54:48 AM »
Would it be possible to pause from automated turns in case of a "Geo Survey Complete" event? My geo troops usually play football instead of survey rocks just because I keep missing this event  ;D
 
The following users thanked this post: Black, Aloriel, smoelf, serger, superstrijder15, Kyle, Destragon, Sebmono, Elminster

Offline Aloriel

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 184
  • Thanked: 90 times
Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.0
« Reply #23 on: August 09, 2022, 11:27:27 AM »
Would it be possible to pause auto turns when deployment time exceeded triggers? Not every ship has standing orders based on deployment time. Some need to be manually sent back.
Sarah
Game Developer in Unity and UE4 and 5
 

Offline cdrtwohy

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • c
  • Posts: 39
  • Thanked: 5 times
Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.0
« Reply #24 on: August 09, 2022, 02:23:59 PM »
Can we get an Admin Command that uses the INT skill for ELINT type Craft? (I want to make an ONI)
 

Offline Aloriel

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 184
  • Thanked: 90 times
Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.0
« Reply #25 on: August 09, 2022, 08:06:48 PM »
Both flag bridge and sector governors are still not part of the automatic assignment system. Can we please get these added into it? :)
Sarah
Game Developer in Unity and UE4 and 5
 
The following users thanked this post: superstrijder15, Kyle

Offline cdrtwohy

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • c
  • Posts: 39
  • Thanked: 5 times
Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.0
« Reply #26 on: August 10, 2022, 05:27:24 AM »
Both flag bridge and sector governors are still not part of the automatic assignment system. Can we please get these added into it? :)

I thought Flag bridges were included since all they do is increase the command level of the ship

but going off this Can Academies be included in the automatic assignment system? maybe add a flag for what type of academy it is?
 

Offline GrandNord

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • G
  • Posts: 18
  • Thanked: 15 times
Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.0
« Reply #27 on: August 10, 2022, 06:31:46 AM »
 It would be nice if there was something to distinguish officers that retired from officers killed in combat in the retired/dead officer category.  Trying to find a specific Lt commander killed in action among 200 names to give him a posthumous medal and retain him is a bit much.

Also, maybe an additionnal medal condition for officers killed in combat would be nice. 
 

Offline Aloriel

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 184
  • Thanked: 90 times
Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.0
« Reply #28 on: August 10, 2022, 08:58:33 AM »
Both flag bridge and sector governors are still not part of the automatic assignment system. Can we please get these added into it? :)

I thought Flag bridges were included since all they do is increase the command level of the ship
Unfortunately, this isn't the case. Flag bridge adds a new position called flag officer. It remains unassigned even when there are plenty of unassigned people in the rank. Senior CO is what you are thinking of, which makes everything +1 rank.
Sarah
Game Developer in Unity and UE4 and 5
 

Offline cdrtwohy

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • c
  • Posts: 39
  • Thanked: 5 times
Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.0
« Reply #29 on: August 10, 2022, 09:05:59 AM »
Both flag bridge and sector governors are still not part of the automatic assignment system. Can we please get these added into it? :)

I thought Flag bridges were included since all they do is increase the command level of the ship
Unfortunately, this isn't the case. Flag bridge adds a new position called flag officer. It remains unassigned even when there are plenty of unassigned people in the rank. Senior CO is what you are thinking of, which makes everything +1 rank.

it does both I forgot about the Fleet Comander role that it also creates