Post reply

Warning - while you were reading 514 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 fourth planet?:

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: January 18, 2019, 09:40:30 PM »

Not sure if this has been suggested already, or if maybe its already been added. But It would be nice to be able to recolour jump links so the map can be a little more organized.
When you have a map which contains a lot of criss crossing links it would be nice to colour code links by some system.
Posted by: Happerry
« on: January 18, 2019, 07:54:45 PM »

The new Genetic Enhancement options are making me wish for equivalent cybernetic enhancements, or at least for the Genetic Enhancements to be renamed so they're easier to fluff as cyborg enhancements.  Or fluff as a mix of both.
Posted by: Garfunkel
« on: January 17, 2019, 01:36:29 PM »

Why is that system an improvement over the one that Steve currently has? Since it is entirely possible to have combat on bodies with no installations at all.
Posted by: Hazard
« on: January 17, 2019, 01:28:51 PM »

That would make logistics a critical weakness. You burn supplies fast by all appearances, with units carrying enough supplies for 10 rounds (60 hours of combat IIRC) before they run out, and a divisional force in combat can burn several hundred supply per round.

Keep in mind that the largest supply component carries only 500 units of supply.

Outside of the most minor engagements you'd need thousands of units of supply, and as the terrain gets more defensible supply demands per kill skyrocket.

Because of this, the advantage will always lie with the defender because with supply so critical to your chances of forcing surrender a defender will stack massive amounts of supply with his defenses while an attacker has to establish and maintain a steady and sizable supply line or his troops start surrendering. Given that especially early on a single supply run can take months that's... rather punishing and makes planetary assault effectively impossible.
Posted by: Scandinavian
« on: January 17, 2019, 12:59:19 PM »

Makes sense.

Also, rubble should count for capture-able installations equal to its previous size.

Maybe instead of counting by captured landing zones formations that fall out of supply should be given a probability of surrender that goes up for each round they have been in combat but out of supply. If we want to be fancy about it, we could even model PoW camps as temporary installations (so surrendered formations can be liberated if reinforcement and resupply arrives in a timely manner).

This way your logistics units and rear echelon HQs essentially carry your flag while in combat, and if people can wipe them the clock starts ticking for your presence on that planet.
Posted by: King-Salomon
« on: January 17, 2019, 05:53:12 AM »

Suggestion about Conquest in Ground Combat:

I was just thinking about Ground Combat and the "end" of it...

maybe something like this would work (and make it interesting)

- each time there is a "breakthrough" in ground combat, the attacker has a chance to capture some Installations (like factories etc) - they are transferred to him and count for him in all aspects (I guess the game is already be able to do this as ruins can give installations, so it should be the same system - destroying a installation for one race and creating it for an other - instead of a "real transfer"?) The chance for a occupation of installations could depend on the weight of the "loosing formation" in relation to the total weight of it's troops side.

- if one (or all) race does not have any installations at the beginning (like the attacker if he is invading) it get's some kind of "pseudo installation (like Landing Zones etc) - exact numbers are depend on balancing but maybe 1 "landing zone" for each X t of troops as a minimum for both sides

- if a race has lost a % of it's starting installations (not because destroyed by collateral damage but because of conquer/occupation) it (or to make it much more complex: each unit formation; I would suggest total surrender for the beginning) has a chance to surrender (maybe depending on a race specific % in the race setup)

- if a race lost all it's installations/pseudo installations it will surrender

this would mean that an invader has to defend it's landing zones as the defender could force him to surrender just by overrunning the landing zones if he is lucky in breakthroughs

it would also show the progress in a battle - not only by death and blood but by gain and losses of terrain

when the attacker invades with only a small force to build bridgehead, he runs the risk to get "cut off"

the defender has to plan if he wants to dig-in and try to blood the attacker dry in a defence war or try an all-out assault to capture the landing zones (and so destroying the enemy ground forces in total) before more waves arrive on planet

but if the defender is just sitting on defence all the time he can not win - also a attacker that is just attacking might end up loosing his "supply bases/landing zones"

---

this is not fully thought through but I hope you get the "picture" I have in mind... battles would be won by occupying (most of) the planet (or the important locations of it) - the occupation is simulated by occupying "installations"
Posted by: King-Salomon
« on: January 16, 2019, 03:25:07 PM »

Suggestion about the Event-Window:

Adding the possibility to Save/Load the colour-coding for the Event Window.

I might be missing something but in VB6 it was possible to set the colors back to "default" but not possible to save the changes and load as a "new default" or "colour set" when you started a new game - as I am playing mostly with the same colours for the same events it would be great to be able to save/load the settings and use them in new gamestarts as well...
Posted by: Ranged66
« on: January 15, 2019, 09:07:03 AM »

Quick simple suggestion:

A checkbox for allowing empty starsystems.


I personally don't like them and always reroll them.
Posted by: dag0net
« on: January 14, 2019, 06:24:57 PM »

Quote from: Jorgen_CAB link=topic=9841.  msg112137#msg112137 date=1547481247
Something I have pondered for a while is pressing civilian shipyards into military production during wartime perhaps should be a thing. 


The same/ilar principle as an economy being limited by private sector generated wealth in a genocidal 'total war' conflict between two species run by monolithic regimes, and whilst the 'features of the engine to automate/enable expanded storytelling' motivation loves the idea, the 'i do hope Steve closes the gap between human and npr capability to exploit the mechanics' part really doesn't ;-)


Whilst I'm typing.  .  .  . 

If the user had a semi-automated(or more automated anyway) method of vessel design, it, or it's results could be co-opted by Steve and the AI.   That is to say that if the user has a set of radio/sliders to play with to design ships based on current/next gen tech and the engine is equipped to generate vessels based on the requirements set.  .  and the ai uses the same set of mechanics then the userbase can be employed to refine ai design mechanics, a capability retained through future issues. 

The system could generate for users a combined package of research for the entirety of the design (as per contract tendering) which results in a completed package, as opposed to researching individual components.   (or retain the same system of individual components ofc.  )

As we can sample from Mr Walmsley's example, the wonders need not cease with the initial release.   I suggest that design revisions (efficiency gains in iterative steps) might be included as a potential r&d step for a fractional gain on components (and/or architectures.  ) Where em6 to 8 gives a third gain, passive em sensor rating 6 size 1 'patch 2' might confer a 5% (or w/e) gain. 

Yahyah, I can bemoan feature creep and suggest it in the same post =)


Re: FC revisions - If any code revision reduced the number of missiles thrown, any performance(engine) loss to more data being tracked per missile/salvo might be gained by limiting the total.   I don't know how well my pc would cope with honor harrington.   Speaking of - wasn't it Weber that had mfc boats that flotillas handed off fire control to?

Data export - Whilst I've seen it referenced many times in a 'gimme mod support' fashion, the ability to export/import certain data (not constituting a save game) would save an awful lot of time. . .  even 'just' extended from what is already there (editable order lists as per templates, fc settings, race/empire starting setups, solar systems) the issue I see is that many paths would require extra work every time the subject of a 'savable' set of data receives revisions.

Sorry if repetitive or whatevs, I do read, but sometimes things go in one eye and out the other =)
Posted by: Father Tim
« on: January 14, 2019, 06:02:58 PM »

I'd be happy if we could just get Point Defense to track X number of missiles in a small area, rather than number of salvoes.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: January 14, 2019, 11:46:09 AM »

Given that Steve has now dealt with the missile - fighter - ship fuel consumption consistency point I was wondering if a similar exercise could be done for fire controls so we don't have the arbitrary 4x tracking bonus for a fighter in an effort to get something to actually fit within a 500 ton limit. The fighters are using the same ship borne weapons so why have a different rule set for them?

Personally I think fire controls are currently way too large in any case and could do with being shrunk to a fraction of their starting size (from some very brief looks at Wikipedia I can see the old Mk 1 Computer that the US used weighed in at a portly 1.3 tons and subsequent systems that were not mechanical in nature got a lot smaller than that). It also strikes me as odd that I can happily build fighters with MFCs that are a fraction of 50 tons and work very well.

If taking a starting 1x range, 1x tracking to 5 tons and going from there sends shivers down the spine perhaps an alternative would be allow for smaller more expensive fire controls and then large cheaper versions as a way to keep consistent but then practically useable. The small fire control would also be a nice buff to energy weapon combatants.

In that case fire-controls should be completely redone. A small fire-control should say have a rather limited number of object they can control while a larger one can control more missiles and targets. This would naturally make fighter fire-controls small and ship mounted ones larger because you want to control more objects in flight or potential targets.

The whole fire-control and salvo thing is an awkward mechanic that unfortunately sometimes break the immersion. Fire-controls should instead be limited not only by speed but also on what they can track and/or control.

A larger fire control can track more incoming targets or in case of missiles guide more of them to the target or in case of beams how many weapons a specific control can operate and/or targets it can track in terms of PD.

I would like the whole salvo idea to be removed as a concept at some point, this might be a good opportunity to do so if redone and dynamically remove the difference between fighter fire-controls and ship mounted ones.

Thus a fighter that only fire a single volley of four missiles would have a much smaller fire-control than a ship that might potentially fire several volleys of dozens of missiles each against multiple targets. Those fire-control AI and communications/scanning arrays need to be built way differently.

I also think that fire-controls should radiate some EM signals when active, though much less so than regular active scanners.
Posted by: chrislocke2000
« on: January 14, 2019, 10:56:00 AM »

Given that Steve has now dealt with the missile - fighter - ship fuel consumption consistency point I was wondering if a similar exercise could be done for fire controls so we don't have the arbitrary 4x tracking bonus for a fighter in an effort to get something to actually fit within a 500 ton limit. The fighters are using the same ship borne weapons so why have a different rule set for them?

Personally I think fire controls are currently way too large in any case and could do with being shrunk to a fraction of their starting size (from some very brief looks at Wikipedia I can see the old Mk 1 Computer that the US used weighed in at a portly 1.3 tons and subsequent systems that were not mechanical in nature got a lot smaller than that). It also strikes me as odd that I can happily build fighters with MFCs that are a fraction of 50 tons and work very well.

If taking a starting 1x range, 1x tracking to 5 tons and going from there sends shivers down the spine perhaps an alternative would be allow for smaller more expensive fire controls and then large cheaper versions as a way to keep consistent but then practically useable. The small fire control would also be a nice buff to energy weapon combatants.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: January 14, 2019, 09:54:07 AM »

Something I have pondered for a while is pressing civilian shipyards into military production during wartime perhaps should be a thing.

A simple thing could be that a civilian yard could retool to a military ship that are 20 times smaller than the civilian yard and this could be more efficient with technology. The retool cost could also be two times more expensive as would then the time be as well and this could also be made more efficient with technologies.

I'm sort of looking on large scale wars such as say the WW2 where there is time and need for re-purposing civilian industry for wartime production. In peace you have a modest amount of military yards to maintain a decent peace time fleet and in wartime you might want to ramp up the production through converting civilian yards into producing military ships.

Military yards should not have this ability and just able to build whatever ships fit their size the way they do now.

In my own games I have allowed this to some extent and I can easily do it through SM... would just be fun if it could be done through a real mechanic with a bit more cost as a side effect.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: January 14, 2019, 09:07:41 AM »

Well, you can bring in a terraforming station into orbit once you have suppressed the opponents defences properly. That would quickly ruin the living conditions on the planet by releasing toxic gases into the atmosphere. Unless they can build enough infrastructure people will start to die and there will be riots on the ground.

It will not kill of the soldiers or the army but it will certainly be a terror weapon that works in the games right now...
Posted by: Jovus
« on: January 14, 2019, 08:07:33 AM »

Brandon Sanderson to write 1. 0

Shall we start a Kickstarter, then?
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