C# Aurora Changes Discussion

[voknaar]

Steve's already made the super ultimate awesomest way to do ground combat. All without realizing it probably.  In aurora there is a galactic map. A 2d space with adjustable grid lines. That was used to fit icons for worlds and their jump point connections.  What if we take the grid and change the icons and make ground combat using this grid assigning troops different movement and firing patterns and so on. Make positioning and modern day maneuver warfare great again!

PDC can be the King to be checkmated by the titan queen.

So... now that I have solved aurora's ground combat problems I'm tempted to go on to fix this world hunger issue I've been hearing about.

[Marski]

Steve's already made the super ultimate awesomest way to do ground combat. All without realizing it probably.  In aurora there is a galactic map. A 2d space with adjustable grid lines. That was used to fit icons for worlds and their jump point connections.  What if we take the grid and change the icons and make ground combat using this grid assigning troops different movement and firing patterns and so on. Make positioning and modern day maneuver warfare great again!

PDC can be the King to be checkmated by the titan queen.

So... now that I have solved aurora's ground combat problems I'm tempted to go on to fix this world hunger issue I've been hearing about.

You do realize that being sarcastic asshole doesn't really get anyone to listen to you.
If you don't like a suggestion, try to atleast explain why instead of trying to undermine it in a childish way like this.

[MarcAFK]

I'm all for removing the exploitative abilities of PDC's as well as making ground combat more interesting. However I think outright removing PDC's would remove some of the interesting possibilities that the new ground combat mechanics might develop.
For a start remove the potential for exploitation, make them require maintenence, which will stop them being exploited, and allow enemy PDCs to be blockaded.
Give them a deployment time. Sure you can just increase crew quarters to raise deployment but that would also increase maintenance costs.
Large ground battles in the area should damage the PDC's armour, or perhaps there should be some kind of titan that excels at damaging PDC's, or provides addittional combat effectiveness to engineers.
One problem I have with PDC's is that a well equipped PDC that's actually vulnerable to being taken out with a small ground force is still basically invincible if it can swat every shuttle out of the air before it lands.
It needs to be somewhat easier to get small forces onto the ground to contest a heavy anti ship weapons facility than currently possible.

[alex_brunius]

Give them a deployment time. Sure you can just increase crew quarters to raise deployment but that would also increase maintenance costs.

How would that work? Normal ships deployment time only ticks up when they are not at a population, but you can't move a PDC so it will always be either at a population ( meaning the feature is useless ), or not at a population ( meaning the PDC is useless since it can't be moved ).

[sloanjh (OP)]

You do realize that being sarcastic asshole doesn't really get anyone to listen to you.
If you don't like a suggestion, try to atleast explain why instead of trying to undermine it in a childish way like this.

Wow - this isn't the way I interpreted the OP at all!  I remember thinking it was actually a kind of interesting idea for generating something other than a regular hex map, albeit a LOT more work than he made it sound (which I suspect is where was "and now, for my next trick..." sentence was about).

In any event, even if a post is a bit jerk-ish, please remember the "no hitting" rule.  We want negative feedback loops in potential flame wars, not positive.

Thanks, and have fun!
John

[Garfunkel]

Should probably focus the PDC/ground combat discussion to this specific thread that Steve made:
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=9679.0

We're currently discussing them in two threads.

[83athom]

"Deployment, Overcrowding, Under-manning and Life Support Failures";

Wouldn't it be feasible that cargo hold may be retrofitted into makeshift "quarters" in cases of dire emergency? I mean it would still be a strain on resources on board a ship, but it wouldn't be as unpleasant nor as much a strain as it would be if there was no cargo hold. Would be similar to your thought on checking if the hangar is in use. Of course that is assuming both the hangar and cargo hold are internal, pressurized chambers instead of external/internal racks that pilots get into their fighters via airlocks/umbilicals and cargo is in containers attached via clamps.

[MarcAFK]

AH. I didn't suggest how to givs a PDC a meaningful deployment time. Well physically a PDC would be supported by maintenance supplies, obviously. But for the crew deployment I would think there would be a need to send replacement crew occasionally using a transport ship, obviously a new crew would lower your crew grade, but it is still an exploit having a seemingly immortal crew.

[Roses]

is there any hope for multiplayer?

[Detros]

is there any hope for multiplayer?

As noted multiple times, because of the disparity of long intervals of maintaining the empire and short ones of combat the possibilities of multiple players playing at the same time in one universe is hardly there. Currently you can either do succession games with save file going around the group or one storyteller/multiple aides way where one player collects suggestions and proceeds with the simulation. There doesn't seem to be indications any Steve is looking forward to change it and recently he is busy with changing the used programming language and multiple core systems with it. See C# Aurora Changes List for more info about that.

[mrwigggles]

I'm not even sure how that could even be fun. Do you just what, frakk off and wait for players to design stuff? Caues it takes so long, they cant design stuff in real time.

A play by post system could work, but that wouldnt work much different then a storyteller and folks telling the story teller whats happening.

[Barkhorn]

As noted multiple times, because of the disparity of long intervals of maintaining the empire and short ones of combat the possibilities of multiple players playing at the same time in one universe is hardly there. Currently you can either do succession games with save file going around the group or one storyteller/multiple aides way where one player collects suggestions and proceeds with the simulation. There doesn't seem to be indications any Steve is looking forward to change it and recently he is busy with changing the used programming language and multiple core systems with it. See C# Aurora Changes List for more info about that.

The disparity of long intervals isn't a problem.  You just do it like EU4 does; it goes with the lowest speed requested.  This isn't the kind of game you play with random people online, you'd be playing with your friends.  So they won't make you wait too long.  Worst comes to worst you can just go do something else while they fight.  You're right that the biggest deterrent is just that Steve has other priorities.

I'm not even sure how that could even be fun. Do you just what, frakk off and wait for players to design stuff? Caues it takes so long, they cant design stuff in real time.

A play by post system could work, but that wouldnt work much different then a storyteller and folks telling the story teller whats happening.

It would be quite a bit different.  You wouldn't need a human to mindlessly follow the inputs the players command.  There is no need for a Game Master.

[MarcAFK]

Multiplayer would work by just having a host running ticks continuously.
You would need players to queue up actions with some system that could correct for errors caused by interaction with other players.
Combat would have to be left entirely upto the AI, a more robust AI would be needed which could have scripted actions based on doctrine or other commands issued by the controlling player depending on the situation.
Basically an entire different game would have to be designed to interact with aurora for multiplayer to work. But it is technically possible.
A more simplified method of integration might work but there is a huge dichotomy between the need for long production cycles and short battle scenarios. At what point is a player put in direct control of his navy? 
The game takes way too long for having direct 1 to 1 interaction with fine control and micromanagement. Well. It could be done if people didn't mind a game taking literally months with time being paused and slowed down whenever theres military contact.
Theres some challenges needed to make 2 clients capable of working on one database without errors, but it could be done.

[Barkhorn]

As long as you play with people you personally know, the time issue is not actually a problem.  You don't need to worry about trolls purposefully going with tiny increments or anything like that.

There's no reason to ever not have direct control by the players.  Every Total War game since Shogun 2 has had multiplayer campaigns.  Battles in those simply make everyone not involved wait.  Really not that big of a deal; you can just go do something else for awhile.

[Bremen]

That's kind of the only way I see multiplayer working without completely redesigning the game; some way for multiple people to connect and have the windows for their own race open, and just agree on when and how long to do the increments for like mature responsible adults (so not random matchfinding on the internet, basically :p)

Would be a nice feature if Steve is ever interested in adding it some day, but I'll note flat out I have no idea how much work it would be to code. Maybe we could tempt him with the potential of not having to play all 12+ empires in his games by himself :p