Post reply

Warning - while you were reading 256 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: QuakeIV
« on: Today 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: Today 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: Today 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: Today 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: Yesterday at 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#
Posted by: alex_brunius
« on: November 06, 2018, 11:37:15 AM »

Even in VB6 Retooling cost is never higher than it would be for an empty shipyard. The cost is checked for empty or converting from the current tooled class. If converting is cheaper than empty, then that number is used. Otherwise empty is used.

Wasn't VB6 retooling free for the first time you did it, assuming it was part of the shipyards initial construction cost to build it in such a way that the first design could be built?

( I don't agree it should be, unless the desired class of ship is locked at an early stage ).
Posted by: TMaekler
« on: November 06, 2018, 09:26:46 AM »

Would it be possible to set a limit on the shipyards continuous capacity expansion.  For example I want to build the shipyard up to 80,000 ton capacity I can either set it to continuous expansion and monitor when this is reached, or I can use several commands over time to build up to the eventual size required.  If instead when I start the continuous expansion I set a limit of 80,000 and then have the shipyard stop expanding, It would be simpler and cause less micromanagement as well.

Brian
Such an option would be great - and would make obsolete all prefixed value. Just imput target size and no of slipways - voila.
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