Post reply

Warning - while you were reading 674 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 is the answer to life, universe, and everything?:

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

Please read the rules before you post!


Topic Summary

Posted by: MarcAFK
« on: Yesterday at 10:51:26 PM »

Actually It would be nice if grade training didn't just require being fired at.
Perhaps a simple mixture of sustaining enemy fire + maneuver training + offensive fire training with all 3 being needed to reach a higher grade level.
Posted by: QuakeIV
« on: Yesterday at 09:44:58 PM »

To be clear, no idea on the viability, but it would be really cool to have to do actual exercises periodically.  Some training missiles to shoot at your point defenses so they can practice with their actual weapons and suchnot.  Would impose a realistic level of cost on doing training, like in real life.
Posted by: alex_brunius
« on: Yesterday at 05:46:45 AM »

Id like to see training of missile ships requiring actually firing a few live missiles and training of Carrier require flying the fighters, as well as training containing a few parts of accelerating to maximum speed.

This could have interesting impacts for intelligence if your enemies or future enemies monitoring the system are able to observe capabilities like ship speeds, warhead strength and speed/size of missiles/fighters.
Posted by: MarcAFK
« on: Yesterday at 05:39:40 AM »

Well, you can already do simulated wargames by spawning warships and either blowing them to bits, or having them fire ineffectually at your own ships causing minor damage but massively increasing crew grade with just a few minutes of single points of damage against the armour.
But the first case is annoying to setup, and the second case is obviously exploitative cheese.
Adding an ingame system to do proper wargames for training would be immersive and perhaps reduce player exploits. Though thinking about it perhaps you could have an alternative to 'task force training' with a 'wargame training' button where all ships in a system on training are assigned to different teams and taken over by the AI for simulated assaults against each other. 
Grade increases shouldn't be as high as actual combat, and perhaps be limited to a fraction of what can be achieved with real combat, but it might be a nice feature.
Posted by: tobijon
« on: Yesterday at 01:49:54 AM »

Would be cool if you could do exercises with your warship using these blueprints.
Design a ship using tech you don't have or components which arent ready yet and spawn it into a system for wargames, pitting your ships against it will gain them experience and training.
Damage done to your real ships would have to be undone of course, all crew deaths being fake, etc.

that goes a bit too far I think
Posted by: MarcAFK
« on: April 17, 2019, 09:50:19 PM »

Would be cool if you could do exercises with your warship using these blueprints.
Design a ship using tech you don't have or components which arent ready yet and spawn it into a system for wargames, pitting your ships against it will gain them experience and training.
Damage done to your real ships would have to be undone of course, all crew deaths being fake, etc.
Posted by: TMaekler
« on: April 15, 2019, 10:16:46 AM »

I think I suggesting something in that line a while ago. Basically you design the components you want to experiment with and "virtualize" them with an additional button (instead of sending them to research you send them to the virtual pool). When you then design the ship you can activate "virtual modules" and test around to make your ship fit as you would like, then mark the virtual modules you need and send them to research. Once they are researched you only have to replace them in your ship design - and voila.
Posted by: MultiVitamin
« on: April 12, 2019, 12:45:59 PM »

About components and research from that other thread in the suggestion forum.

It has been suggested a few times that perhaps there could be a way to use components in ship designs before they are actually researched. This would make designing ships a bit simpler without having to resort to SM to research them and then remove the research to research them normally after you decided on what components to use for your designs.

My suggestion is to simply be able to use components for design even if they are not researched. In the design window you should be able to toggle between having the list including both researched and not researched components or only just researched components (should be the default view).

Any ship design that have a none researched component can't obviously be used unless all components in it is properly researched.

This would make it slightly easier to design ships without resorting to SM to test out components.

So like a blueprint/concept design type of thing?
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: April 12, 2019, 10:09:04 AM »

About components and research from that other thread in the suggestion forum.

It has been suggested a few times that perhaps there could be a way to use components in ship designs before they are actually researched. This would make designing ships a bit simpler without having to resort to SM to research them and then remove the research to research them normally after you decided on what components to use for your designs.

My suggestion is to simply be able to use components for design even if they are not researched. In the design window you should be able to toggle between having the list including both researched and not researched components or only just researched components (should be the default view).

Any ship design that have a none researched component can't obviously be used unless all components in it is properly researched.

This would make it slightly easier to design ships without resorting to SM to test out components.
Posted by: totos_totidis
« on: March 31, 2019, 08:04:33 AM »

I have an idea. What about implementing nuclear artillery? The Damage could scale with warhead technology. The units when in combat could generate a bit of fallout and dust. Tactical nuclear weapons could be useful for ground invasions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_artillery
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_ballistic_missile
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)
Posted by: Resident Evil
« on: March 27, 2019, 12:14:08 PM »

Will that not still give rise to problems with fighters landing if their reaction bonus is lower than the carriers?? Unless you give a 'reaction bonus' bonus to smaller craft, so they have a higher reaction bonus than the carriers.

I tend to put higher ranked officers in charge of carriers than in fighters (not least because there's just so many more of them).

ZG
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: March 27, 2019, 11:57:23 AM »

Hello again.

This is a re-post as I originally posted in the wrong place apparently. nvm :)

I assume that C# is going to implement initiative still so I'd like to make the following observation/suggestion.

At the moment, I have to set Fighter squadrons initiative to a higher setting to get them to dock with the carrier. What is somewhat irritating is that every time they dock and relaunch, the initiative gets set back to 100 again. Now I can get round this by setting the carrier initiative lower than 100; so the fighters can dock. But still, fighters are naturally agile, so it would be nice if the code could be modified so they retain their initiative after docking/launch.

I'm not sure if this is practical, because I suspect the initiative is assigned to the Task Group, and when the fighter dock the Task Group no longer exists. Hmmmm..... Perhaps, rather than defaulting to 100, fighter squadrons could default to their highest possible initiative instead upon creation.

Anyway, just a suggestion. It may be too much trouble to implement.

ZG

Initiative has been replaced by Reaction Bonus for C#. That won't change due to fighter launch or recovery.

http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg97342#msg97342
Posted by: Resident Evil
« on: March 27, 2019, 11:46:20 AM »

Hello again.

This is a re-post as I originally posted in the wrong place apparently. nvm :)

I assume that C# is going to implement initiative still so I'd like to make the following observation/suggestion.

At the moment, I have to set Fighter squadrons initiative to a higher setting to get them to dock with the carrier. What is somewhat irritating is that every time they dock and relaunch, the initiative gets set back to 100 again. Now I can get round this by setting the carrier initiative lower than 100; so the fighters can dock. But still, fighters are naturally agile, so it would be nice if the code could be modified so they retain their initiative after docking/launch.

I'm not sure if this is practical, because I suspect the initiative is assigned to the Task Group, and when the fighter dock the Task Group no longer exists. Hmmmm..... Perhaps, rather than defaulting to 100, fighter squadrons could default to their highest possible initiative instead upon creation.

Anyway, just a suggestion. It may be too much trouble to implement.

ZG
Posted by: Resident Evil
« on: March 19, 2019, 01:52:08 PM »

Just a reminder for Steve in the future, that the suggestion was made for the ability to be available to create civilian 'air raid' shelters in some form or other for protection of the civilian population in the event of planetary bombardment.

Here's the link ---->   http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=10300.0

Cheers

ZG
Posted by: Graham
« on: March 12, 2019, 08:19:11 PM »

I personally like the idea of adding a fuel efficiency curve to engines, but not enough to delay the C# release, so probably a 1.1 feature :).

It would make a lot of sense, since in fluidic space resistance would increase at higher speeds. Also I think it would add some tactical depth, as fuel consumption at flank speed has been something captains have historically had to deal with, especially for commerce raiders etc.

I would suggest for simplicity that there is no curve on engines below 0.5 modifier.
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