Post reply

Warning - while you were reading 188 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: Steve Walmsley
« on: March 12, 2019, 04:46:06 PM »

Had a few questions pop into my head during lunch and figured I would ask.

1. Is there any possibility for DB access or APIs that would allow us to access game data? There are a few neat tools I have come across for VB6 that allowed you to dump data to create reports or create files that could be imported into Space Engine which helped add a ton of flavor to my games, providing you had access to the DB. Is this something that's an option or could be an option with C# sharp as well?

2. How much are you looking into AI Deployment/Combat when it comes to players devising ways to fool it? Can I crank out large missile drones with as large as possible active sensors to send them on wild goose chases across the known universe? Will the AI be able to discern between fleet contacts and missile contacts in this context? Could I do this endlessly or would it be possible to have them catch on at some point? I cannot remember in VB6 if active sensors on missiles give it away that it was a missile.

I haven't decided yet whether to secure the DB for C# Aurora, but I will probably go for something similar to VB6.

AI should be smarter regarding target selection and will be able to tell the difference between missiles and ships, although I haven't finished coding it yet. I will have to get moving on that though because my latest test game just generated precursors during system generation (about 10 minutes ago) for the first time.
Posted by: Barkhorn
« on: March 12, 2019, 02:40:29 PM »

In VB6 it does seem to give away that a contact is a missile.  I saw the AI spam about 1000 AMM's at a single sensor buoy.
Posted by: Darkminion
« on: March 12, 2019, 01:52:10 PM »

Had a few questions pop into my head during lunch and figured I would ask.

1. Is there any possibility for DB access or APIs that would allow us to access game data? There are a few neat tools I have come across for VB6 that allowed you to dump data to create reports or create files that could be imported into Space Engine which helped add a ton of flavor to my games, providing you had access to the DB. Is this something that's an option or could be an option with C# sharp as well?

2. How much are you looking into AI Deployment/Combat when it comes to players devising ways to fool it? Can I crank out large missile drones with as large as possible active sensors to send them on wild goose chases across the known universe? Will the AI be able to discern between fleet contacts and missile contacts in this context? Could I do this endlessly or would it be possible to have them catch on at some point? I cannot remember in VB6 if active sensors on missiles give it away that it was a missile.
Posted by: misanthropope
« on: March 12, 2019, 12:07:04 PM »

with an 8% inherent interest rate, construction 16 tech and a 30% governor bonus, the overhead cost of a project done via CF is .857 per BP.  that is to say, the overhead on a new 1000 ton naval shipyard is higher than the *total* cost of a 10,000 ton slip, during the phase of the game where errors actually matter.
Posted by: TMaekler
« on: March 12, 2019, 05:53:14 AM »

Maybe Steve can introduce a system where a repeat in slipway production increases the speed of production (to simulate experience). This extra speed then get's lost when you retool.

That would give you the choice of having multiple slipways for each class you build, but which might lay dorment for quite some time if you don't build there in series as well as the disadvantage of more workers needed in general, but give you the advantage of quicker construction if needed - vs. having fewer slipways you retool as you need, but have longer production times (and lesser need of slipway workers).
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: March 12, 2019, 03:42:15 AM »

I don't think it matter all that much in which order things are built... by the yard or by factories. If the yard builds it you still looses time you could do something else. It also would just be a one time thing. A yard that will stand there for a LONG time will generally be better with one slipway in several yards over time unless there are some sort of bonus for building ships in serial. Many yards makes it way easier to build more specialized ship classes and make smaller incremental changes and slight (and different) alterations to classes.

It depends on how expensive it is to add new slipways in contrast of building a new shipyard. Currently you build a yard for 2400 and it cost roughly 2000 minerals to expand it to a size of 10.000 tons and building a new slipway at 10.000t will cost you 2000 minerals. So I agree that if you build smaller ships then having a few slipways will be beneficial but as ships scale up in size the initial cost will sort of get lost and mean less and less and the flexibility of more yards are more important.

Perhaps the balance is good as it is... I don't know.
Posted by: Father Tim
« on: March 12, 2019, 02:00:42 AM »

Sorry; I must be tired.  I specifically went and checked that post before replying and I still saw a base, per-shipyard number of workers for C# Aurora as well.
Posted by: Scandinavian
« on: March 12, 2019, 01:32:27 AM »

Well, since the amount of workers is NOT the same,
Rules as written, it is going to be the same: http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg112323#msg112323
Posted by: Father Tim
« on: March 12, 2019, 12:15:17 AM »

I was wondering what the benefit will be to build shipyards with multiple slipways in them now when the amount of personnel to man them are the same per tonnage? . . .

Well, since the amount of workers is NOT the same, the benefit to one shipyard with two slipways of X tonnage over two shipyards each with one slipway X tonnage will be less personnel, fewer minerals, and less Construction Factory time since the shipyard itself can build the additional slipway.

The drawback will be that both slipways are tooled for the same design.
Posted by: misanthropope
« on: March 11, 2019, 08:34:52 PM »

producing new slips instead of new yards saves you significant if hard-to-estimate costs in construction factory effort
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: March 11, 2019, 04:23:46 PM »

I was wondering what the benefit will be to build shipyards with multiple slipways in them now when the amount of personnel to man them are the same per tonnage?
Personnel was one of the main benefit of having several slipways. Will there be some retooling benefits when you have more slipways or some other industrial benefits. I guess that yards with many slipways could or should be able to share allot of tools, machinery and expertise so some improvement in building multiple ships could be introduced with more slipways.

I understand that there can also be a one time benefit in building a new slipway than building a completely new shipyard, but that is a one time thing so might not be a huge thing in the long run, depending on how cheap it is to add a new slipway versus building a new shipyard. Certainly it can be viable for really small yards but for larger ships this cost difference might almost be insignificant.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: March 06, 2019, 05:39:15 AM »

about your newest post

Quote
Ship Commander Rank

The required rank of a ship commander is set automatically by Aurora and will be the lowest race rank, unless one of the following component rules is activated. Component rules are not cumulative so only the highest requirement applies.

If a ship is greater than 1000 tons and has any of the following component, the required rank is lowest rank + 1: Weapons, survey sensors, a jump drive, a hangar deck, Auxiliary Control, Science Department, Primary Flight Control.
If a ship is greater than 1000 tons and has any of the following component, the required rank is lowest rank + 2: Main Engineering, CIC, Flag Bridge.

The Class Window has a checkbox entitled Senior C.O. If this is checked, the class will have a required rank one higher than the above rules require (to allow the player to designate certain classes as worthy of a more senior officer than normal).

The rule is an enhancement to the command and control rules: http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg101818#msg101818

does the specification to >1000t ships mean that the rule

Quote
4) Regardless of the above, any ship of 1000 tons or less will be the lowest rank, unless it has one of the control stations (Auxiliary Control, Science Department, Main Engineering, CIC)


http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg104038#msg104038

is not longer relevant?  ??? so a 1000t ship or less will be of lowest rang regardless of the modules?

Good spot. Original rule is correct and I will fix the new post.
Posted by: Shuul
« on: March 06, 2019, 04:16:49 AM »

Hi, do you plan to implement "normal" NPR with some kind of hive mind feature?
Posted by: King-Salomon
« on: March 06, 2019, 02:29:49 AM »

about your newest post

Quote
Ship Commander Rank

The required rank of a ship commander is set automatically by Aurora and will be the lowest race rank, unless one of the following component rules is activated. Component rules are not cumulative so only the highest requirement applies.

If a ship is greater than 1000 tons and has any of the following component, the required rank is lowest rank + 1: Weapons, survey sensors, a jump drive, a hangar deck, Auxiliary Control, Science Department, Primary Flight Control.
If a ship is greater than 1000 tons and has any of the following component, the required rank is lowest rank + 2: Main Engineering, CIC, Flag Bridge.

The Class Window has a checkbox entitled Senior C.O. If this is checked, the class will have a required rank one higher than the above rules require (to allow the player to designate certain classes as worthy of a more senior officer than normal).

The rule is an enhancement to the command and control rules: http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg101818#msg101818

does the specification to >1000t ships mean that the rule

Quote
4) Regardless of the above, any ship of 1000 tons or less will be the lowest rank, unless it has one of the control stations (Auxiliary Control, Science Department, Main Engineering, CIC)


http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg104038#msg104038

is not longer relevant?  ??? so a 1000t ship or less will be of lowest rang regardless of the modules?
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: March 02, 2019, 05:47:19 PM »

Reading over the Particle Lance again, I want to make sure that the PL 'option' is also available for smaller particle beam projectors.  For example, once I unlock Particle Lance at base strength 6, can I go back and make a smaller, base strength 4 Particle Beam into a Lance (and thus double its damage to 8 and get the single-column profile), or am I stuck with only Lances size 6 (12) or larger?

You can make smaller ones as well.
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