Post reply

Warning - while you were reading 487 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: Garfunkel
« on: Yesterday at 03:43:32 PM »

That change to engines would mean that Steve would have to rework the engines and their scaling completely, for no good reason.

It is entirely possible to create 1-man fighters already. As for the other fighter stuff, Steve has stated that he wants to move away from special rules as much as possible - this is the reason why PDCs were scrapped in C# and why engines and sensors are now uniform across all sizes and purposes. If you want to create a 1-pilot or 2-pilot fighters, have them with minimal deployment time and using either box launchers or reduced size gauss cannons, and just the fire control with no other sensors.
Posted by: xenoscepter
« on: Yesterday at 03:06:48 PM »

 - How about adding a checkbox that allows the player to determine whether a drive is a Military Engine or a Commercial Engine? Perhaps with a third option for an Intermediate Engine, an option which which might be selected by NOT checking any of the other two? The Military Drives would be heavier than the other two, while having more HTK per tonnage; whilst the Commercial versions would produce better fuel economy than the other two, but suffer from having fewer HTK per tonnage than them. Meanwhile the Intermediate Drives would have balanced stats which served as the baseline. Only Military engines would require Maintenance by default, while Intermediate and Commercial Drives would only require Maintenance if the ship had Military Components.

 - I think that would be a cool idea! It would make things more robust in the balance department, making single engine ships more useful. I think Reactors could benefit from something like this as well; with Military Reactors having more HTK per ton, but also weighing more; while Commercial Reactors create more output than the Military and Intermediate ones, but suffer from less HTK per ton than them. Again, intermediate versions would be a baseline; middle of the road variety. I also think between the Military, Commercial, and Intermediate versions, there should be a difference in the cost to build them. Likewise to this, I'd like to see a "Civil Defense" style of weapons, which would enable Civilian designs to have weapons while being classed as commercial ships, but at the cost of the "Civil" grade weapons being of poor quality. It could even potentially pave the way for export models of weapons and ships.

 - If you were to make Armored Engines and Armored Reactors a thing, then it would become even more robust, allowing the player the ability to trade weight for HTK, overall reducing speed to increase survival rates. This would give players a reason to make single engine ships, as one big engine with armor will be significantly lighter than two big engines without. Coupled to the fuel requirements of larger engines and increased HTK of Military engines, this could make single engine designs quite useful. Likewise, the options are further increased when considering the cost / weight ratio of Intermediate Engines / Reactors with similar or greater Armoring; while the greater cost efficiency and fuel economy of large Commercial Engines might make a heavily armored version desirable for fast and tough ships.

 - Less of a suggestion and more of a request. Can we please mount more than one type of engine on a ship? I understand if it's difficult to program or something, but I just figured I'd ask.

 - EDIT: Also, can we have an option for single man fighters? Perhaps a "Fixed Crew" option which would impose a degraded performance penalty to someone trying to fire, maneuver etc. Maybe dedicated "Fighter" versions of weapons which are much smaller, lighter and cheaper... but can only be mounted on Fighters? Perhaps a dedicated Fighter Training installation to counter the degraded performance, but only for Fighters? Maybe a Fast-Attack Craft class (500-1000 tons) which benefits from that installation? However it needs to work, I really just want to have the ability to control the crew requirements of my Fighters, single man crew, two-man Pilot / Gunner configs, three man Pilot / Gunner / Sensors setup, or even Turret Gunners for big bomber / interdiction craft. That's all. The above are just some suggestions as to how I think such a feature might end up looking like.

 - ANOTHER EDIT: Regarding dedicated "Fighter" components, maybe additional Flight Crew needs for stuff like Lasers, since maintenance is a thing. Or special Fighter Hangars that allocate berths and tonnage to the needed support crews and their equipment. Possibly a component that provides dedicated fuel capacity to Fighter class craft, or one that provides Magazine Capacity for up X number of Fighter ships with Class 1-3 missiles, etc.?
Posted by: MasonMac
« on: Yesterday at 11:29:02 AM »

What I'd imagine is that the data is stored has the components with the technology required and the attributes to it (size/fuel eff.) which the program can parse into a usable ship. Then the ship "class" will just contain all the references to the components and how many of them are in the ship. Though before any of this is parsed, there are checks to make sure that the technology has been researched already by comparing the Empire tech and a list of the minimum technology required to design that ship. What I'm thinking is likely an inefficient form of data storage but it's possible to do.
Posted by: tobijon
« on: Yesterday at 11:21:39 AM »

Importing/exporting ships. They can only be added if the required technology was researched by that player or the player is in sm mode. There are a lot of designs I like in the design bureau but it's a bit inconvenient having to figure out what technology was used for it.
that's a bit of a problem considering the research of components, I don't see a viable way to solve that.
Posted by: MasonMac
« on: Yesterday at 11:05:19 AM »

Importing/exporting ships. They can only be added if the required technology was researched by that player or the player is in sm mode. There are a lot of designs I like in the design bureau but it's a bit inconvenient having to figure out what technology was used for it.
Posted by: JustAnotherDude
« on: February 15, 2019, 05:05:14 PM »

C# has had a bunch of QoL changes that makes certain things a lot easier, but I think a big on is allowing conditional orders to use order presets (i.e go to planet X, moon Y and asteroid Z, transit to system A and refuel at station B) and also, as you considered earlier in the changes list, adding ship level conditional orders. This would let you, say, bring fuel from your homeworld to FoB once it reaches a certain level automatically. One can already have the ship making the trip 24/7 but this would give it some extra finesse and flexibility.
Posted by: Desdinova
« on: February 15, 2019, 04:34:49 PM »

In the other thread, people are talking about trading ship components between player races.

I know that the planned diplomacy system is a long ways off, but I'd like to suggest:

Making it possible to trade technologies between NPRs. Currently, you can set it so newly discovered technologies can be shared between friendly/allied NPRs, but it'd be nice to have an option to trade previously discovered technologies with allies or exchange knowledge with neutral races.

Making it possible to trade ship components directly, or to grant a "production license" allowing a race to build components they wouldn't normally have access to.

I'd also like to suggest making it possible to steal component technologies through espionage. This is currently possible with missiles, but not other components. If a race has the prerequisite technology to build it, it should be possible to steal the plans for a component.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: February 14, 2019, 06:54:09 AM »

Double clicking on a system in the galaxy view only brings up the "F9" (System Generation and Display), and not the System Map, the thing im suggesting.

Ah, terminology confusion. F9 to me is the System View and what you call the system map is the tactical map (as opposed to the galactic map).
Posted by: procdrone
« on: February 14, 2019, 04:23:05 AM »

Quote from: Steve Walmsley link=topic=9841. msg112804#msg112804 date=1550137045
Quote from: procdrone link=topic=9841. msg112799#msg112799 date=1550116549
This is but a simple UI improvement suggestions. 

1.   Add a button to galactic map, which allows jumping straight to the currently selected system view. 

2.   In Task force UI, remove selecting Task forces from the dropbox(which I find greatly inconvenient, given number of various TFs you gather later in the game), and make a combo box with a full list on the left side of the TF window. 
To be fair, the systems list in the system view could be similarly treated.

1) You can double-click on systems (in VB6 too) to open the system view. 

2) The fleet window is completely different in C# (check the changes or screenshots threads) and has a fleet hierarchy, not a dropdown.

Double clicking on a system in the galaxy view only brings up the "F9" (System Generation and Display), and not the System Map, the thing im suggesting.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: February 14, 2019, 03:37:25 AM »

This is but a simple UI improvement suggestions.

1.  Add a button to galactic map, which allows jumping straight to the currently selected system view.

2.  In Task force UI, remove selecting Task forces from the dropbox(which I find greatly inconvenient, given number of various TFs you gather later in the game), and make a combo box with a full list on the left side of the TF window.
To be fair, the systems list in the system view could be similarly treated.

1) You can double-click on systems (in VB6 too) to open the system view.

2) The fleet window is completely different in C# (check the changes or screenshots threads) and has a fleet hierarchy, not a dropdown.
Posted by: procdrone
« on: February 13, 2019, 09:55:49 PM »

This is but a simple UI improvement suggestions.

1.  Add a button to galactic map, which allows jumping straight to the currently selected system view.

2.  In Task force UI, remove selecting Task forces from the dropbox(which I find greatly inconvenient, given number of various TFs you gather later in the game), and make a combo box with a full list on the left side of the TF window.
To be fair, the systems list in the system view could be similarly treated.
Posted by: MarcAFK
« on: February 13, 2019, 08:04:54 PM »

That should be an option, if a roll is made for CMCs and the body is suitable for asteroid miners then an equivalent batch of miners could be assembled and launched.
Posted by: DEEPenergy
« on: February 13, 2019, 05:53:01 PM »

Civilian asteroid miners. Along with the ability to ban them from bodies/systems  :)
Posted by: MarcAFK
« on: February 08, 2019, 07:09:06 PM »

Seems reasonable.
Posted by: QuakeIV
« on: February 08, 2019, 02:10:59 PM »

That seems like a good way to do it to me.
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