Post reply

Warning - while you were reading 258 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:

Verification:
What color is the sky?:

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

Please read the rules before you post!


Topic Summary

Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: Today at 01:31:51 PM »

I was thinking the other day about the new command structure of Aurora and about Ground Generals and Space Admirals. I really think that we should use the same Admin Command structure for both of these branches so Admin Commands should be able to hold both High Ranking generals or Fleet admirals. This I think are quite realistic because at the high end of things you will have both of these commands intertwined since they are both equally important and they will need to coordinate their efforts anyway.

Most skills should also work within both branches but that a General give slightly more bonus to ground forces and Admirals slightly more to fleet assets. But at strategic levels I think that both of these should be more or less equally important and competent.

In this way Armies would act as Fleets and you then have as many sub armies/fleets you can attach to each army or fleet. Both Fleets and Armies should be able to have sub fleets and sub army units attached to them, the only difference is that Fleets can only be commanded by Admirals and Armies only commanded by Generals and they both give less of their bonuses to any sub units that is not of their type.

But you should only be able to have Ships in a Sub-Fleet and Ground units in a Sub-Army but you could have a Sub-Army in a Sub-Fleet if you wish.

The point being if I want to simulate a typical US Marin Corp task force I would want to have both ships and ground troops in them. You could have a Sub-Fleet of Assault carriers with a few squadrons of fighters and a full marine brigade of troops. Such a Task-Force would then comprise a Fleet if Assault Carriers with their escorts and support ships attached to an Admin Command led by a Ground Commander. The Sub Fleet would be led by an Admiral and each brigade led by a Brigadier General as a Sub Army Unit attached to the Assault Sub-Fleet.

Might make the power structure a bit more complex but even more fun from RP and also sort of realistic. Do you want your generals or admirals in charge of a specific operation... probably depends on what their objectives are.

Each Admin command could just be designated as Naval or Ground and the game would attach the most appropriate rank to that position. Who outranks who within Navy or Ground is only important due to where they are in the tree... otherwise they are just added based on the command structure of their own internal organisation. This would mean that a Fleet Admiral can be led by a General in one place while commanding a General in another but never at the same time.

Thoughts?!?
Posted by: Agoelia
« on: Today at 04:29:28 AM »

Quote from: QuakeIV link=topic=9841. msg111049#msg111049 date=1542320709
It might be a good idea to make info the AI uses as inputs visible to players in general (when the info would be useful to the player), that way there is a way higher chance of noticing if its getting miscalculated (or noticing if the calculations ever break), which would hopefully lead to more reliable AI over the long term.

Could you make an example out of that? I'm not really sure what you mean.
Posted by: QuakeIV
« on: Yesterday at 04:25:09 PM »

It might be a good idea to make info the AI uses as inputs visible to players in general (when the info would be useful to the player), that way there is a way higher chance of noticing if its getting miscalculated (or noticing if the calculations ever break), which would hopefully lead to more reliable AI over the long term.
Posted by: Whitecold
« on: Yesterday at 01:50:05 PM »

Some ideas for tech development:
-Components can be added to design as soon as they are designed. The design cannot be built or locked until all the components have been researched, to you can essentially design a ship, tailor your components in one go and then submit all the projects for research.
-Themes should be able to contain default naming schemes for components. So you can specify your Missile Launchers to be named S{} Torpedo Tube by default, or turn Particle Beams into photon torpedoes. This would also be useful for foreign language themes, and all that is required is a bit of string formatting with the component parameters.
-Components should be able to be used as template for new components, like missiles currently work.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: Yesterday at 01:12:25 PM »

On the ordnance factory page, i'd love to have a button to mash that would compute a "missile census", counting the existing missiles by type as well as aggregating the loadout specs of my ships (including those building) by missile type.  if displaying all that data is a pita, just getting supply and demand numbers for one type (via dropdown?) would still be pretty godlike.

The NPRs are doing all of the above in C# Aurora, so they know what missile types to build. Would be relatively easy to show to players too.
Posted by: misanthropope
« on: Yesterday at 11:10:50 AM »

On the ordnance factory page, i'd love to have a button to mash that would compute a "missile census", counting the existing missiles by type as well as aggregating the loadout specs of my ships (including those building) by missile type.  if displaying all that data is a pita, just getting supply and demand numbers for one type (via dropdown?) would still be pretty godlike.
Posted by: Whitecold
« on: November 14, 2018, 05:10:50 PM »

A small change to the missile design UI:
Currently they are rated by hit chances against targets at certain speed. This is inconvenient most of the time, much more meaningful would be stating the target speed a missile achieves 10%, 50% and 100% hit chance for example.
Sure, the values are easily convertible enough, but 10kkm/s is far below the target speed of any  AMM
Posted by: Father Tim
« on: November 13, 2018, 05:07:54 PM »

Has the military recruitment been talked about yet? Being able to choose if your armed forces are conscripts or volunteer-based professional military force, that sort of thing.

Naval Crew and Officer academies will still have an 'experience level' setting, so your empire can produce much fewer high-quality Crew personnel, or a large number of standard-experience Crew.

There has been no discussion of applying the same system to ground force training, and thus being able to take longer to produce higher XP (or Morale, or whatever) units.
Posted by: Marski
« on: November 13, 2018, 04:06:39 PM »

Has the military recruitment been talked about yet? Being able to choose if your armed forces are conscripts or volunteer-based professional military force, that sort of thing.
Posted by: Tree
« on: November 11, 2018, 10:21:27 AM »

Would it be possible to add shipyard complexes activities to the "Player Race Production Overview" window? Adding slipway constructions, retoolings and the 1000/5000/10000/etc buildups to the "Shipbuilding" tab would be nice, along with the continual expansion up to a certain cap if you implement that, of course.

Since you're adding variant starts rules now, how about one that turns Jupiter into a small red dwarf, making the galilean moons inhabitable or close to? Oops, typing it now I remember how different are secondary stars treated from planets, might not be the easiest addition.
Posted by: Rabid_Cog
« on: November 07, 2018, 09:22:29 AM »

Almost as expensive as building a new shipyard AND spending about 5 years increasing its size to where it can build your expensive ship? Somehow I doubt it.

Regardless, now that you put it that way, it sounds quite realistic and as if it adds depth to the game, forcing you to plan your construction a bit ahead.

Not only working as intended, but already in the game as well.
Posted by: Titanian
« on: November 07, 2018, 06:16:13 AM »

I am strongly opposed to that feature. In the end, that means that tooling a new shipyard to a freighter first, and then a terraformer wastes lots of materials compared to doing it the other way around, which makes no sense. For expensive commercial designs (terraforming, maintainence), it even means that building a new shipyard is only marginally more expensive than retooling, and has the added benefit of having an additional shipyard.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: November 06, 2018, 01:08:49 PM »

That was more to model the the shipyard being "built for spec" the first time. In effect, the cost of retooling for your first ship is included in the cost of the shipyard itself.

In other words, working as intended  :P

Yes, that's correct.
Posted by: Rabid_Cog
« on: November 06, 2018, 12:38:57 PM »

That was more to model the the shipyard being "built for spec" the first time. In effect, the cost of retooling for your first ship is included in the cost of the shipyard itself.

In other words, working as intended  :P
Posted by: Garfunkel
« on: November 06, 2018, 11:58:50 AM »

It was and it is. I don't think Steve is changing it for C#
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 54