Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

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: Steve Walmsley
« on: May 28, 2016, 06:06:18 AM »

It wasn't VB6 specifically but more that the whole program was designed around the assumption that populations were tied to system bodies. Fixing that would have been extremely complex.

Now I am recreating from scratch, I will have more flexibility in this area so it will be possible to have deep space populations. I just need to figure out the best way to handle it.
Posted by: sloanjh
« on: May 27, 2016, 07:19:14 AM »

If Steve was jazzed about the idea, he probably would have made it happen years ago ...

Generally true, although I have a vague recollection in this case of him saying that he has a fundamental architectural problem in the VB code with making deep-space habitable objects.  The problem is that colonies/populations have to go on bodies, and a ship/unit is not a body.  My recollection is that he thought it would be too hard to change this.  So it's conceivable that it was just technical difficulties in the past and he'll set the C# code up so this can be done. 

John

PS - Not commenting on the idea, just that on the possibility of technical difficulties.
Posted by: boggo2300
« on: May 23, 2016, 04:37:15 PM »

You also need to remember Steve has (recently for some of us) gone through and removed special case ship types like fighters and patrol craft, changing them to be built as ships.  I'd be really surprised if he suddenly reversed course for something that can pretty much already be simulated in game.  Though I would like a method of permanent modular assembly, kinda like a tractor beam with no power requirements that is more or less permanent
Posted by: Prince of Space
« on: May 22, 2016, 08:28:46 PM »

I think most of what you suggested is either already a possibility in the game's current or upcoming version, or it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. To me at least. What does it mean for crew number to be "based on infrastructure rather than crew quarters?" Maintenance is already free for orbital habitats, so long as they aren't classed as military. Don't want engines on your space stations? Don't put them on, then. And I'm not really sure why being a space station would make shields in particular work differently.

Distilling down the new feature requests to their essence, it seems like you want a tow-able colony nucleus, usable as a regular colony regardless of position. That's an interesting request, and mirrors a long held desire among some forumites for tow-able asteroids.

I don't think it will happen, even if it might be a neat idea. If Steve was jazzed about the idea, he probably would have made it happen years ago when the tow-able asteroid idea was first suggested. Moreover, the current and near future ability to create remote, non-planetary bases at arbitrary points is being built around the idea of those bases being logistically supported by more traditional planetary colonies and industry. Hauling maintenance supplies and fuel and ordnance from one colony to a station in deep space is logistically interesting, requiring the player to manage the flow of resources.
Posted by: xXKageAsashinXx
« on: May 22, 2016, 04:51:58 PM »

I feel like everything I typed up was disregarded...
Posted by: boggo2300
« on: May 22, 2016, 04:49:37 PM »

so why does that need a new hull type?

you want a few new component types but theres no reason to have a new hull type to support that. 
Posted by: xXKageAsashinXx
« on: May 22, 2016, 12:21:58 AM »

Did I miss an update somewhere? Populations housed in orbital habitats are supposed to count towards planetary populations and they can run planetary installations like factories and the like. If you think it's too unrealistic to commute to and from orbit every day, you could load up the OH with cargo holds, allowing it to haul its own installations and simulating the increased size. If you think that OH are too expensive for their return, you're in good company. Steve will be increasing their capacity in the upcoming version.
From what I've read, OH population was separated from planetary pop. At the same time, you couldn't transfer them from planet to planet if you moved the OH. Unless I'm working off of outdated info or it's just plain wrong, this is what I've played by.
The reason that PDCs get a special designation is that they operate under special rules: no engines, some free armor, no maintenance, can be prefabricated. What would the rules be for space stations that differentiates them from ships?
As soon as I made that last post, I realized that I've spoken out ideas without giving anything concrete, anything to be critiqued. I did plan on editing, but then this came up, so I'll just do it here.

Hull Type Space Station
No engines, minimum of ten years worth of supplies, crew number based on infrastructure rather than crew quarters, free maintenance if over colony, stronger shields, cannot be prefabricated, but can expand after construction.

Engines and supplies is self-explanatory, but the infrastructure is to basically condense all the needs of the species under one name. If that's too simplified for you, then it's more than possible to break it down and have different modules for different life support.

The maintenance is free over colonies cause then it's assumed that the colony is responsible for the station. Since the station orbits a colonized planet, it wouldn't be that much of a stretch to say that those planet-side would make sure the huge sink of resources just outside the atmosphere doesn't end up fireballing into their cities thanks to a power source or weapon malfunctioning.

Shields is there for defense, once everything's said. Shield sizes can't be changed as far as I know, so in making shields there'd be an option where you decide whether it'll be on a ship or station. The station one is larger and has a better fuel-shields ratio, though it'll still drink more fuel than its smaller counterpart.

The lack of prefabrication is basically because OH can't be prefabbed. Since this is similar to OHs, I'm not gonna try and force a difference between the two where it isn't needed.

Now this here would be the unique aspect. There'll be a module called simply the construction module, where each module comes with a workshop and the space needed for a single construction ship. It'll have the same BP as a factory, it can build on a planet it orbits, and it'll even speed up shipbuilding if a shipyard is present, whether inside the station or just on the same planet. This means that you can tow this station over to, i don't know, say the edge of your empire near the frontline of a war between you and some aliens. Navy getting battered? Repair them at the station, and build them reinforcements at the same time without having to worry about risking your standalone shipyards and worry about trying to ferry minerals to said shipyard. In another scenario, you have a terraforming station that's just finished its job, and now the population is beginning to migrate to the surface because you didn't plan on placing down any infrastructure in anticipation of a zero cost colony. The station can build the beginning factories, mines, mass drivers, and whatnot thanks to the minerals it has in its hold and the construction modules on the station itself.
Another add-on to the last scenario, now the colony needs defense. So what do you do? Train some troops to temporarily pacify the locals, but a PDC is needed to stop the messages from popping up in the event log. Or, you could just retrofit the station by building some weapons on it, since it counts as being part of the planet when in orbit. Because the construction modules comes with its own ship, you can add installations onto the station after it's built, without needing to go back home for an overhaul.

While typing up the construction module one, I remembered about armies. Well then, another module. For planets there's the training installation that lets you train troops from the population. Since a station has its own population, all you need is a place to train them in... and obviously house them. So, one module to train them and another to house them, though the latter technically already exists. The station can only train infantry however; there are limitations to structural integrity that shouldn't be tested by battalions of tanks rolling around firing everywhere.

I've mentioned biodomes a few times in this thread, so I'll expand here. Biodomes reduce the supplies needed for a station to keep its population alive. If you can grow your own food and use your own poop as fertilizer and pee as water after filtration, then at bare minimum you've become self-sufficient. I'm not sure if a station should be allowed to get to a point where it doesn't need supplies, but chances are it'll need some other resource so it won't be able to survive in deep space by itself forever anyways.

The more I go, the more I come up with, like space elevators that affect the station's efficiency percentage like political stability does on planets in case you have more modules than your station's population can use. I think at this point the issue of coding this all in should pop up, so someone tell me whether any of this is possible or not before I lose me head in the stars.

The only substantive request you've made is for installations to be able to be supported or replicated in empty space, without a planet or a token asteroid to anchor then to. We are already getting a boost in that regard for deep space maintenance bases and civilian hangars.
Though I think you summarized my desire down pretty well, what came after's still nothing more than a pit stop really, which isn't that close to what I'm suggesting at all. DS maintenance and civie hangers just make our current options easier to implement, and maybe open up a few new ones.

At the very end let me say this. Roleplay can benefit from stations too. Just imagine the stories about stations that orbit a planet lost to abominations the scientists cook up in labs that end up massacring the population.

I'm such a dreamer...
Posted by: Prince of Space
« on: May 21, 2016, 08:45:13 PM »

OHs can only mine and terraform, plus their population doesn't actually count towards the planet's. They can technically defend the place as well, but at the moment having a military OH is too much trouble for the results it produces.

Did I miss an update somewhere? Populations housed in orbital habitats are supposed to count towards planetary populations and they can run planetary installations like factories and the like. If you think it's too unrealistic to commute to and from orbit every day, you could load up the OH with cargo holds, allowing it to haul its own installations and simulating the increased size. If you think that OH are too expensive for their return, you're in good company. Steve will be increasing their capacity in the upcoming version.

The reason that PDCs get a special designation is that they operate under special rules: no engines, some free armor, no maintenance, can be prefabricated. What would the rules be for space stations that differentiates them from ships?

The only substantive request you've made is for installations to be able to be supported or replicated in empty space, without a planet or a token asteroid to anchor then to. We are already getting a boost in that regard for deep space maintenance bases and civilian hangars.
Posted by: xXKageAsashinXx
« on: May 21, 2016, 03:47:52 PM »

I am curious as to why you think construction brigades, and terraforming modules are redundant?

...

I'm not sure if you know but construction brigades don't simply just build underground infrastructure, they have a BP generation ability that means they function as a lower output construction factory all on their own.
Before I get started, just pointing this out that you answered your own question there as far as the CB is concerned.

Now that I am starting, I'll begin with that I'm not saying that redundancies are bad. You pointed out the reason why there are both installations and modules for terraforming, because in certain situations one is better than the other. Same with the CB, in worlds where you have over 80% population on agriculture, expecting them to be able to build and use their own factories is just stupid, which is where CB comes into play in only one of their possible applications. It's because of these redundancies that problems can either be large or small depending on how you try and fix them. That whole post was to rebut the fact that having space stations as a unique hull type that can have construction modules or biodomes and the like is a redundancy that can have negative effect in the game.

If you've found a world that's sitting on all the mineral types as well as being somewhat centralized in the system, that also has lots of minerals in different places, imagine placing a space station above it with population that can pave the way for a planetary colonization. Terraform the place, mine the minerals, build the infrastructure, and defend the immediate area, all in one unit. Maybe even throw in a shipyard module so that it can build its own small space faring craft under 5k tons or something. OHs can only mine and terraform, plus their population doesn't actually count towards the planet's. They can technically defend the place as well, but at the moment having a military OH is too much trouble for the results it produces.

Once again, redundancies aren't all bad; they have their place in almost every scenario they're introduced. You want to have redundant entrances into neighborhoods in case the sole road in and out gets blocked, or the bridge gets destroyed. You want multiple power lines in case one shorts or gets disconnected, and so on and so on. For Aurora, I'd just like to see a new hull type where the redundancies like construction modules, shipyard modules, biodomes, things like that can be used to find new solutions to problems, and also provide a new way to rp. What about you?
Posted by: Rich.h
« on: May 21, 2016, 11:19:10 AM »

Terraforming stations are redundant as well, since you can just plop down a crapton of infrastructure and terraforming installations that do the same thing, or make a PDC that can house troops even in initially non-colonizable planets and fix it that way. Same with mining stations, and on that note, ship versions as well. And yet they are in the game. To say that you can't have orbital factories or science labs just because it's redundant is moot all by itself. If you had used a different reason then I wouldn't be this defensive, but come on now, try a little bit harder. Construction Brigades are redundant construction factories, with a unique feature for building underground infrastructure and recovering ruins. The former could easily be given to a station with a construction module, which bumps the brigades down to recovering ruins as their special point, and thus alleviating a small bit of micro while expanding potential colonization options and making stations more distinct to ships.

That said, I'm intrigued at the prospect of making an asteroid into some kind of giant station/ship, but that sounds like you're just slapping a PDC on it really, so nothing interesting there that's really new.

I am curious as to why you think construction brigades, and terraforming modules are redundant? Yes you can simply drop installations and a ton of infrastructure down, but you also happen to need populations to run those stations, population to feed the ones working in the terraformers, and populations to sell shoes sell to the farmers, oh and population to do all the paper work for all of the above.

To give a quick example of this my current campaign I use a terraforming ship design if just under 500k tons. Each ship has 18 terraforming modules and at this time my terraforming fleet consists of 5 of these vessels, once in orbit this TG can happily make Mars into a colony cost zero world in a few short years. If you were to do this by using ground based factories it would require tens of thousands of units of infrastructure to support a large enough population that can work in the terraformers. This also means your freighters are now tied up for a year or more shipping all this stuff, along worth needing millions of population and having to ship them over too. By the time all of this is done my current terraforming TG has made Mars green and moved on to already do the same to the Moon and likely be halfway to having Europa fit to inhabit too. From there I can sit back and let the civilian companies ferries new colonists to these worlds.

I'm not sure if you know but construction brigades don't simply just build underground infrastructure, they have a BP generation ability that means they function as a lower output construction factory all on their own. This means they can build anything you want, just give them minerals and they do the rest, so if you have a world where perhaps you just want to make a couple of small things like sensor bases etc you can drop them down instead of again needing an entire infrastructure set up. Or if you have a world that is of such a high colony cost (Venus) then a few construction brigades could be dropped to build something instead of having to devote 99.9999999% of your population to simply keeping the oxygen generators running day to day.
Posted by: xXKageAsashinXx
« on: May 20, 2016, 03:48:57 PM »

Terraforming stations are redundant as well, since you can just plop down a crapton of infrastructure and terraforming installations that do the same thing, or make a PDC that can house troops even in initially non-colonizable planets and fix it that way. Same with mining stations, and on that note, ship versions as well. And yet they are in the game. To say that you can't have orbital factories or science labs just because it's redundant is moot all by itself. If you had used a different reason then I wouldn't be this defensive, but come on now, try a little bit harder. Construction Brigades are redundant construction factories, with a unique feature for building underground infrastructure and recovering ruins. The former could easily be given to a station with a construction module, which bumps the brigades down to recovering ruins as their special point, and thus alleviating a small bit of micro while expanding potential colonization options and making stations more distinct to ships.

That said, I'm intrigued at the prospect of making an asteroid into some kind of giant station/ship, but that sounds like you're just slapping a PDC on it really, so nothing interesting there that's really new.
Posted by: iceball3
« on: May 20, 2016, 02:24:50 PM »

Bread and butter, yeah they're the same. But their purpose is different, their variation in pursuing their purpose is different, their structure is different, and depending on its detail even the life support will be different (as in they have biodomes and can be somewhat autonomous, where supplies won't be needed). Maybe it's just because I like the difference between the two to be more distinct, where its modules would be more specialized like with PDCs (weapons would have a stable launching platform, considering if a station goes all wonky form firing a few weapons then something's wrong, or supplies cost less or more tonnage per quarters, or a biodome so that unlike the OB it legitly counts as a planet's population, or even house shipyards or construction ships to act as factories or something). I think it might be the chance to make something unique into the game that I'm jumping at; I can't really give all that many details, but that's just how I feel about it.
By the looks of thing, any Big Industry that's taking place is not going to occur in deep space, with how development is going. Understandable, honestly.
As it is, if you really wanted expanded functionality like that, you're going to have to find an orbital asteroid or something similar to do the job on. Implementing all those extra functions will make them completely redundant, anyway, so...
Posted by: xXKageAsashinXx
« on: May 18, 2016, 05:41:23 PM »

Bread and butter, yeah they're the same. But their purpose is different, their variation in pursuing their purpose is different, their structure is different, and depending on its detail even the life support will be different (as in they have biodomes and can be somewhat autonomous, where supplies won't be needed). Maybe it's just because I like the difference between the two to be more distinct, where its modules would be more specialized like with PDCs (weapons would have a stable launching platform, considering if a station goes all wonky form firing a few weapons then something's wrong, or supplies cost less or more tonnage per quarters, or a biodome so that unlike the OB it legitly counts as a planet's population, or even house shipyards or construction ships to act as factories or something). I think it might be the chance to make something unique into the game that I'm jumping at; I can't really give all that many details, but that's just how I feel about it.
Posted by: boggo2300
« on: May 18, 2016, 05:08:21 PM »

I'm interested to know why you think they need their own hull type?  PDCs are the only one that is like that now,  and that's basically because they're holes in planets rather than actual hulls,  Ships and Stations have as their only real difference engines,  so why would there need to be a separate hull type for them?
Posted by: xXKageAsashinXx
« on: May 18, 2016, 09:06:05 AM »

Personally I feel disappointed, but oh well.

Can't remember off the top of my head. I'll have to get back home to check on that. What I do remember, is putting over ten 9's in the supplies counter, so it'll survive for ages XD

Edit: They were all size 1. The system I'm using this for has no planets in it, so basically it's for system presence just in case another war tries to use my home system as the stage... geez that fight was annoying...