Post reply

Warning - while you were reading 4 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Please read the rules before you post!


Topic Summary

Posted by: paolot
« on: Today at 06:18:13 PM »

Quote from: xenoscepter on June 04, 2025, 12:57:37 PM
So Active Terminal Guidance.

Kind of... boring, honestly. And mostly useless.
...

I use it and find it useful.
The images are the missile with ATG and retargeting, and the event message that confirms retargeting (an orbital bombardment, and I switched off the active sensors of the ships).
Posted by: paolot
« on: Today at 05:28:41 PM »

I hope we could have the command "Clear Fleet targets", as we have "Assign Fleet", "Open Fire Fleet" and "Cease Fire Fleet".
When there are tens and tens of ships, clearing targets of each one is tedious and long.
Posted by: KriegsMeister
« on: Today at 04:59:51 PM »

Had a couple ideas for DSP's, I'm fairly certain these aren't entirely original and have been mentioned before, but they've been floating in my hand a lot recently

- Split DSP's into 2.5 different types:
Fixed - As they currently are mainly implemented being permanently fixed to some spot.
Orbital - Rather than the current gas giant rule where they just stick to the planet, I'd like the ability to select a body (star, planet, or moon) and then input an orbital distance/angle from that body. once created the DSP would revolve around the body.
Lagrange Orbital - Rather than inputting an orbital distance/angle, you could select one of the 5 Lagrange points between 2 bodies. This wouldn't really be necessary for L3,4,5 as you could just get the orbital distance of the body you want to follow and set your angle appropriately, but L1,2 would fall out of sync with traditional orbital velocities. Or if you wanted to follow a body's highly eccentric orbit.

The main reasons I want orbital DSP's is to 1) set up a more dispersed Orbital Defense Station Network such as establishing bases at Earth-Luna L3,4,5 or 2) dispersing sensor arrays along the orbit of a planet to complement its DST's or 3) Fixing shipyards to the L1,2 of a mineral rich Venusian world or high-gravity Super-Earth for the roleplay lore of not wanting to be too dangerously close to the planets. I'm sure others could find other fun things to do with mobile DSP's.
Posted by: skoormit
« on: Today at 02:35:56 PM »

My factory construction queues typically contain one or more "major" projects, and as small needs arise I will lower the cap% allocated to a "major" project, and create a new project to meet whatever need has arisen.
This can often end up with half a dozen minor projects going on at once.
As each minor project completes, I must manually reassign the cap% back to my desired major project.

Suggestion:
Allow us to designate one or more tasks in the queue to automatically receive the cap% of any project that finishes.
This would work similarly to the "Assign New" feature for research facilities, with the primary difference being that the cap% to be assigned should be split amongst the designated projects (whereas a research facility can only be assigned to a single project).

I think that projects waiting in the construction queue (C1, C2, C3, etc) should get priority--any live projects designated to receive cap% will only receive what is left over after projects waiting in the queue have been promoted as possible.
Posted by: David_H_Roarings
« on: June 11, 2025, 10:34:32 PM »

Can we get orders to detach a sub-fleet/sub-fleets and adsorb fleet as sub-fleet? I often have an assortment of commercial grade support ships in a sub fleet that I detach and leave at the jump point before going into a contested system
Posted by: skoormit
« on: June 09, 2025, 12:06:36 PM »

A lot of players like to start the game with civilian shipping lines active, and then deactivate them at some point (ideally before civvy trade-route-finding starts slowing down turn generation too much).

This setting also affects NPRs, though, and therefore it seems that an NPR that is generated after civvies are deactivated won't have any civvies. Which seems like a big handicap for the NPR.

Suggestion: modify the NPR creation process to include an appropriate amount of civilian shipping tonnage (perhaps comparable to the largest non-NPR race's tonnage, modified by this NPR's random scaling value), even if civvies are currently "inactive" in the game.
Posted by: nuclearslurpee
« on: June 08, 2025, 05:15:52 PM »

Quote from: lumporr on June 08, 2025, 09:01:06 AM
Separate but connected suggestion: Certain spoiler races seem hardstuck when it comes to maximum speed and size of combat craft. Expanding the custom NPR parameters to the combat craft of spoiler races would be nice, though this might be more of a challenge.

I would like to see at least the ability to set the Precursors and Invaders tech level as a player's choice option, since they remain static and for higher-tech games they basically become speed bumps after a certain point. This could perhaps also be good for Raiders if the player wants them to be more threatening, a la Steve's Gothic campaign back before 2.0.

Quote from: Viridia on June 08, 2025, 10:19:38 AM
Hi Steve,

Something I'd like to throw in the ring for a suggestion would be an increase in the energy/kinetic weapon bores we can research, as well as possibly increasing the distance beam weapons can fire up to as well, even if it comes at obscene mass prices. I'm asking as I'm currently trying to recreate an accurate design from David Weber's RMN fleet book, but anything beyond light cruiser size is unachievable at the moment due to the high tonnage of his designs.

In an older thread, someone came up with the number that 1 "Walmsley ton" = 4 "Weber tons", which might be helpful for you in trying to get tonnages to "match". Anecdotally, when I've tried to set up Honorverse-style settings, I've usually been able to get tonnages to match by playing around with various degrees of freedom like missile sizes, number of sidewall generators, etc.
Posted by: paolot
« on: June 08, 2025, 02:57:37 PM »

Economics window, Shipyards Tasks tab: would it be possible to add sorting by "Progress" and "Ship name"?
Posted by: Viridia
« on: June 08, 2025, 10:19:38 AM »

Hi Steve,

Something I'd like to throw in the ring for a suggestion would be an increase in the energy/kinetic weapon bores we can research, as well as possibly increasing the distance beam weapons can fire up to as well, even if it comes at obscene mass prices. I'm asking as I'm currently trying to recreate an accurate design from David Weber's RMN fleet book, but anything beyond light cruiser size is unachievable at the moment due to the high tonnage of his designs.
Posted by: lumporr
« on: June 08, 2025, 09:01:06 AM »

Suggestion: Expanded parameters for customizing NPR fleets, especially size, and potentially speed (or tech level with slightly more granularity than just the single pool of tech points?). It is difficult to set up NPRs to fight at a certain tech level or engine generation, or use ships of truly massive sizes. It may cause unforseen issues, but what happens if the size parameter is expanded out to say, 10x times? Or if there's a field for engine generation and average max engine multiplier? These would both go a long way in the ability to represent specific NPRs from fiction that will be the specific challenge you'd like them to be.

Separate but connected suggestion: Certain spoiler races seem hardstuck when it comes to maximum speed and size of combat craft. Expanding the custom NPR parameters to the combat craft of spoiler races would be nice, though this might be more of a challenge.
Posted by: paolot
« on: June 08, 2025, 06:54:56 AM »

Economics window, Civilian/Flags tab: if there is a request for an installation, a new supply cannot be created for that item. A simple warning message could be helpful.
Posted by: Akhillis
« on: June 08, 2025, 12:30:30 AM »

Suggestion: New Game Settings - Minerals

Fairly simple suggestion, add two new fields to the game settings.

- Mineral Deposit Frequency
- Mineral Deposit Size

Deposit Frequency alters the chance of discovering minerals with both space and ground geosurveys. Deposit Size alters the size of any discovered deposits. Both are percentage modifiers and are set to 100 by default, much like the other settings.

To my understanding this wont affect the accessibility of minerals.
Posted by: paolot
« on: June 07, 2025, 05:02:49 PM »

- Please, add the missing tooltips: they are missing in several (too many) points.
- Please, keep the tooltips visible until the cursor is moved. I.e. not set a time-out for showing them: reading long sentences requires more time than the one is now allowed.
Posted by: nuclearslurpee
« on: June 07, 2025, 01:34:43 PM »

Suggestion: A button or option to lock time advancement, so that clicking a time increment button does nothing.

Rationale: I've lost count of how many times I've accidentally advanced time during game setup due to unfortunate misclicks.  :P
Posted by: David_H_Roarings
« on: June 06, 2025, 06:41:25 PM »

Quote from: Ush213 on June 06, 2025, 08:50:06 AM
Quote from: SpaceMarine on June 06, 2025, 07:54:35 AM
Simple Suggestion: Change the default starting date to 2030 (or any approapriate new start date)

It is currently according to the gregorian calender the year 2025 (in real life)

Aurora 4x has always had a date that is in the future to start with, to maintain continuity this must be rectified as aurora now starts in the modern day on default start. I am sure everyone agrees.

I alway just set mine to 2100 because its easier to see how many years iv been playing. I do this mostly because i cant count. ha  :D :D :D

I generally set mine to 1000 so I don't have to count