# Aurora 4x

## Aurora => Aurora Suggestions => Topic started by: Erik Luken on February 12, 2013, 07:11:25 PM

Post by: Erik Luken on February 12, 2013, 07:11:25 PM
In an effort to help with suggestions not getting lost in the mega-5.7 thread, I'm making this thread. Only use this for suggestions pertaining to 6.x and higher.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: ollobrains on February 12, 2013, 10:23:35 PM
To start off with the option of buying sorium mined from gas giants off the civilian lines like we do with regular minerals.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: CheaterEater on February 12, 2013, 10:50:27 PM
I'll repeat my two from the 5.7 thread:

Give us tech to improve the support functions of ships like engineering, life support and bridges. These are fairly common items where reduced sizes/increased efficiencies would help out. Most other items can be teched up for improved efficiency (industrial modules, engines, etc.) so it's a bit odd that these are left out. I purposefully left out fuel storage as we already have the increased fuel efficiency tech which serves much the same purpose, but it could certainly use it too with the new fuel consumption rules.

Second, have ships moving at a reduced speed burn fuel more efficiently. Currently giving my escorts a greater speed with a larger power boost is a bit of a waste if they're normally traveling at the slower fleet speed. If you averaged (or did something similar) between necessary versus max power it would greatly improve fuel efficiency on high-boost engines that are used only occasionally at max speed. It would also allow more "patrol" type ships that run more slowly while deployed but can boost to high combat speeds when necessary at a cost in overall fuel efficiency. As an example, a x2.5 power engine uses x9.88 more fuel (than a x1 boost engine). If you had the ship run at half speed it only needs a x1.25 power boost for x1.75 as much fuel consumption. An average then would give you x5.815 as much fuel per engine power hour, a very large increase in fuel economy. A x1.2 boost engine (x1.58 fuel) running at half speed for x0.6 boost (x0.28 fuel) would give a fuel efficiency of x0.93, not nearly as large of a difference. The speed would also tend to be rather slow when using a low-boost engine in the first place, making half speed much slower. It's interesting to note that a very high-boost engine can't get even close to the fuel consumption of a low-boost engine no matter how slow it goes; even if you take a x2.5 boost engine down to, say, 0.2 boost (we'll assume 0 for the consumption), the fuel requirement is still x4.94. Overall this would help high-boost engines that go at moderately slower speeds the most which is where it's needed most.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: TheDeadlyShoe on February 13, 2013, 03:03:16 AM
System Map system list sorting.

i'd love it if the systems dropdown auto-sorted, ala:

Populated
---
Have ships
---
No presence

I.E.

Alpha Centauri (pop50m)
Sol (pop800m)
----
Sirius(Gravsurvey)
Wolf359 (Gravsurvey)
----
Proxima Centauri (no presence)

------------------
@CheaterEater:

I would just note that would inescapably represent an increase in fuel economy, stepping back the recent changes.  Also, it would be somewhat complicated to display / control / mentally calculate.  It would also be stepping on the feet of carriers//parasite warships a little, since a dichotomy between tactical and strategic speeds is what they are all about.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: ollobrains on February 13, 2013, 03:15:17 AM
Well my thoughts is that small ships should have a small fuel harvestor * maintence keeps such ships close to home * or perhaps emergecy fuel tanks or something that give slightly more range.  Or small bases fuel use, fuel availablilty just seems a bit out of sync at the current time
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: davidb86 on February 13, 2013, 08:25:20 AM
To start off with the option of buying sorium mined from gas giants off the civilian lines like we do with regular minerals.

ollobrains,  you can buy fuel from civilian lines by sending a ship to refuel from a civilian fuel harvester.  The more you do this the more harvesters the civilians will build.  I typically assign a tanker to make routine visits, as most gas giants are to far out of the way to send my ships to them.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: IanD on February 13, 2013, 11:53:44 AM
No matter what flavour of engine you use for an identical power output you consume the same amount of fuel per Engine Power Hour. What this means is that a conventional engine is as fuel efficient as a Magneto-plasma drive, just you can generate more power in the same space. There is no  improvement in fuel efficiency as your engine tech improves.

This doesn't seem quite right. Almost like (in wet navy terms) as saying a reciprocating steam engine is as efficient as a high pressure steam engine is as efficient as a diesel engine is as efficient as a nuclear reactor.

With the recent changes to fuel requirements it is surely not beyond the realms of possibility to  increase engine efficiency as the tech improves.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: xeryon on February 13, 2013, 12:50:49 PM
Borders.  A recent topic regarding this that was started by clement brought about an epiphany for me.  I think I found a way that would promote several game mechanics

Borders in space are kind of an odd duck.  Space is so vast that hard-set borders would be highly unlikely to be established and near impossible to enforce or patrol.  More realistically would be a zone of control based on power projection.  The zones really only do one thing: influence an alien racial/governmental variable that determines their aversion to causing a reduction in diplomacy score.

Populated systems have a value based on the size of the population and industry.  When someone enters your system, or you enter theirs uninvited, a diplomacy score adjustment is made proportional to the size of the systems and ship fleets involved.  The aversion modifier on the alien race dictates how willing a race would be to put itself in a potentially diplomatic degrading situation.  Space is really big so of course the modifiers only apply if you see or are seen on sensors (gives a little bump to stealth use here)

Unpopulated systems default to a power of your fleet score.  When a system is first visited by a ship that ship starts a counter which increases each industry interval by a factor proportionate to the tonnage of the craft present in the system.  Civilian and military craft have disproportionate rates as a military craft is a much more powerful projection of power.  The longer you control a system and guard it the higher your counter.  As long as your counter is higher than any other race you are the controlling power.  All other races would incur a diplomatic penalty for entering your system provided you witness them in the system on your sensors.  Each loss of a ship would cause a significant reduction in the control score.  A sizable battle where your fleet gets wiped out would effectively 0 your score (makes sense since you just got your butt kicked that the aliens would now control it regardless of how long you have been guarding it).  Any alien race putting down a colony with a population or with industry in a system they do not have control of would create a huge change in the current diplomacy score between the two races.  That colony would quickly erode the controlling powers control score until removed.  This would basically cause an outright war if done intentionally.  It's pretty much an invasion of sovereign territory.  Systems without a fleet presence would have a control score that naturally degrades over time.

Positive aspects of this setup:
1. The need to keep up a control score to maintain proper supply lines to various systems and not allow yourself to be cut off from expansion would necessitate building suitably protected space stations in otherwise unpopulated systems and making territory patrols a semi-regular task.  This would increase usage of an otherwise neglected portion of the game - undeveloped territories now have value.

2. Several new diplomatic options are viable just by manipulating the mechanic: right of passage treaties and trade treaties where the player has individual control over the systems allowed.  Since everything is on an aversion score if you allow a race to trade with System A with no diplomatic penalty they wouldn't enter System B unless they wanted to instigate a war (which they wouldn't if your diplomacy score is good).  This would eliminate the problems with allies and friends planting their fleets all over your sovereign territory (sometimes only to attack you years later from all their fleets parked on your colonies).

3. Stealth.  A relatively underutilized aspect of the game, in both tech and in application would be used more often.

All of this would seem to work based on two things: First, the mechanic needs to be pretty much invisible to players as it would be very easy to game the system if you knew what the control scores or values of a system were and Second, Steve would have a fair bit of AI to figure out.  The values for all these actions would be pretty easy to calculated the complicated part seems to be can the AI be programmed to respond appropriately?

Edit: Sorry for the wall of text.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Charlie Beeler on February 13, 2013, 12:54:52 PM
No matter what flavour of engine you use for an identical power output you consume the same amount of fuel per Engine Power Hour. What this means is that a conventional engine is as fuel efficient as a Magneto-plasma drive, just you can generate more power in the same space. There is no  improvement in fuel efficiency as your engine tech improves.

This doesn't seem quite right. Almost like (in wet navy terms) as saying a reciprocating steam engine is as efficient as a high pressure steam engine is as efficient as a diesel engine is as efficient as a nuclear reactor.

With the recent changes to fuel requirements it is surely not beyond the realms of possibility to  increase engine efficiency as the tech improves.

This was true in pre v6 Aurora as well... to a point.  Previously this fixed ratio was fuel to hull space.  In both cases fuel efficiency is a separate tech item from power production, but is a required engine design component.  In that sense tech advancement does improve efficiency.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: sublight on February 13, 2013, 01:45:52 PM
One problem with boarders is the question "How do they know?"

I'd suggest making this visible and distinct with claim markers, or beacons. These might be a PDC/ship component or piece of infrastructure. When active they would be visible to everyone in system like a transponder. The message is simple: "Mine, says Galactic Empire X." This way any ship entering a new system can instantly and realistically know if the new location is unclaimed or not.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Erik Luken on February 13, 2013, 01:54:19 PM
One problem with boarders is the question "How do they know?"

I'd suggest making this visible and distinct with claim markers, or beacons. These might be a PDC/ship component or piece of infrastructure. When active they would be visible to everyone in system like a transponder. The message is simple: "Mine, says Galactic Empire X." This way any ship entering a new system can instantly and realistically know if the new location is unclaimed or not.

An option could be to make JG specific to nations. If I build a gate on my side of a JP, and you transit through, you'd have notification of who owns the gate. You could still transit through the gate like normal. If I build it on the other side of the JP, you'd get notification like above, who owns it and you can still transit.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Charlie Beeler on February 13, 2013, 01:59:36 PM
An option could be to make JG specific to nations. If I build a gate on my side of a JP, and you transit through, you'd have notification of who owns the gate. You could still transit through the gate like normal. If I build it on the other side of the JP, you'd get notification like above, who owns it and you can still transit.
I was thinking a flavor of nav buoy at jump points to lay claim to a system.  A variation would be that only races that have established comms can read each others buoy's.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: xeryon on February 13, 2013, 03:43:07 PM
Bouys and markers could certainly be possible, but the general concept really is more for keeping well meaning friendly races away from your population centers and clogging things up and to keep the malicious ones at bay until they really are declaring war.  Keep in mind this would be something that would apply more to races that you have established communications with, so they (presumably) would already have some information about your declared border with their race.  If they are an enemy race and you do not have communications with them then what difference would a border marking do?

In the hinterlands the borders are a lot more gray, just like here on Earth.  People often know where the borders are even without a sign but often choose to ignore the border.  There are repercussions if you get caught, though.  Within the game you really shouldn't know the control value of a system more along the lines of a fog of war.  If you sneak in a cloaked scout and you get some sensor readings on your enemies you might have an estimated value but unless you have line of sight you would never know if your enemy had 1 8000 ton cruiser or a 50 ship armada.

Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Erik Luken on February 13, 2013, 03:51:47 PM
Obviously the spoilers will not adhere to New Geneva Galactic War Conventions...

I do like the idea of not knowing who owns the system until a colony is encountered.

Which brings me to mayonnaise. (sorry, mind frakk radio commercial flashback). Anyway. The following situation:

Colony 1 -- Uninhabited -- Colony 2

Both colonies belong to the same race. Most people would claim that the Uninhabited system belongs to the race owning Colonies 1 & 2. For this situation, I think that the uninhabited system would inherit the higher cultural rating (less distance modifier from the Sector HQ) of the adjoining systems.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: xeryon on February 13, 2013, 04:04:55 PM
Well, the idea would be that the system between the two colonies would be traversed frequently by your own ships anyway so it's control value would be heavily in your favor.  In addition to that if you wanted to guarantee a projection of your power you would assign a military patrol to frequent the system or build a station that is assigned to guard the region.  If Colony 1 and 2 are the only JP in and out of the system it would be a moot point but if there was a third JP the patrol and base would be how you would guarantee control of the system and protect the adjoining colonies as well.

In practice right now you have no clue who "owns" a system either, so....
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Erik Luken on February 13, 2013, 04:38:25 PM
In practice right now you have no clue who "owns" a system either, so....

Not until you run into a colony or fleet ;)
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: xeryon on February 13, 2013, 04:46:31 PM
Exactly. I kind of like it that way myself. Really, until you would establish a diplomatic relation with that race you wouldn't know what any of their borders were. Such is the vastness of space that you might have been cross-crossing several of their systems that they claim as their own but you two never saw each other so you didn't know.

Adds an interesting dynamic in my opinion. I certainly understand your point though, for me personally I like the fog of war concept applied here.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Erik Luken on February 13, 2013, 04:52:43 PM
Exactly. I kind of like it that way myself. Really, until you would establish a diplomatic relation with that race you wouldn't know what any of their borders were. Such is the vastness of space that you might have been cross-crossing several of their systems that they claim as their own but you two never saw each other so you didn't know.

Adds an interesting dynamic in my opinion. I certainly understand your point though, for me personally I like the fog of war concept applied here.

The optimal solution in my opinion is having the AI NPRs (not spoilers) abiding by demarcations of borders. Obviously this means some sort of treaty must be in place (Non-Agression or higher). Any sort of trade treaty would allow civilian ships, while military type treaties will allow military ships access.

Of course, if relations deteriorate to the point of war, borders might(will) shift.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nightstar on February 14, 2013, 03:40:14 AM
The simplest solution might be the best. Just let players/NPRs mark systems as theirs on the galactic map. (auto mark with colony) Have these transmitted once communications are open.

In the meantime, current mechanics are plenty good enough. You CAN put probes on the outer jump points of your territory. (I suggest doing so anyway) You can get less subtle by using cheap attack fighters, or minefields.

The problem isn't that we really need a new mechanic. The problem is that the AI doesn't understand such concepts as diplomacy or 'get out of my territory'. Perhaps the AI should be made to leave systems claimed by others, depending on some value and current relations? In the strategic intelligence window there's already a list of 'known systems'. Leverage that? Make the AI generally understand warning shots? (with potential to go hilariously wrong?) Or powering up active sensors/shields as a warning? Or just the concept of having a ship stationed at a border?

Come to think of it, these NPRs are, in fact, alien. Perhaps them not understanding such things makes sense.

I suggest that anything like cultural bounds is going to feel FAR too gamey when applied to a game with a human controlling the races.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: ollobrains on February 14, 2013, 04:01:51 AM
Borders are a good idea but given i just roll over all aliens with invasion fleets its moot for my games that said let em claim their space a valid reason for war.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: xeryon on February 14, 2013, 06:05:05 AM
Nightstar, one of your ideas you mentioned is a simplified version of what I proposed: a control counter based on the type and size of your presence in a system.  I agree that hard borders would be gamey.  Hence the use of a counter based on presence. As you grow or the bulk of your fleet conducts operations on a specific front your perceived ownership and control of an area would grow with use. Thus, your borders would ebb and flow. You would need to be vigilant in patrolling your sphere of influence so opposing races don't erode your territory.

This would not affect conquest in any way aside from knowing that an alien cruising through a system that they know you control are, in fact, hostile. The friendly aliens would stay away from your core systems to keep from hurting your diplomacy level.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: ollobrains on February 15, 2013, 12:04:51 AM
On the production and population screen where terraforming is active is it possible to put a T next to the planet name
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: xeryon on February 15, 2013, 06:42:49 AM
I just had a new epiphany: tactical sorium harvesters and refineries.

Very small, rather slow, not practical for anything but implementation on deep space explorers.  It would need to be of a scale that wouldn't be suitable for much aside from self-refueling geo and grav survey ships.  I don't think it would be realistic that such a vessel would be capable of providing fuel services for a military fleet aside from an extreme emergency.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: TheDeadlyShoe on February 15, 2013, 11:08:46 AM
Those ships are actually supposed to be limited by having to refuel.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: xeryon on February 15, 2013, 11:28:28 AM
Well, my thought was that it would be a very inefficient design to limit usage.  You could make it be a military class for enabling maintenance and that would necessitate a very unique design to overcome maintenance supplies and failures for extremely long duration tours.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Erik Luken on February 15, 2013, 12:23:32 PM
I just had a new epiphany: tactical sorium harvesters and refineries.

Very small, rather slow, not practical for anything but implementation on deep space explorers.  It would need to be of a scale that wouldn't be suitable for much aside from self-refueling geo and grav survey ships.  I don't think it would be realistic that such a vessel would be capable of providing fuel services for a military fleet aside from an extreme emergency.

Maybe something like a ramscoop. Orbit a gas giant, and refuel. To go with that though, I'd say you'd need to have special engine that can handle the raw sorium, or they'd need a real inefficient converter (50x or 100x) to make them only useful for specialized ships.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: xeryon on February 15, 2013, 01:58:22 PM
Would make an interesting option for nebulae systems.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Icecoon on February 16, 2013, 03:59:44 AM
I don't know if it was proposed yet, but i have an idea about the expansion of missile defence options.
I'm talking about countermeasures. Well, we have ECM, like the modern fighters do, but what about decoy missiles or buoys?

When you have some thermal or EM homing missiles inbound it would be a far cheaper option to launch some flares or chaff or something like that.

We have two ways to do this:

1.
We could do this by designing a special buoy consisting of fuel only, and when it will be launched it detonates near the ship blinding the IR seeker of the thermal missiles.
If we have some EM missiles inbound we could launch a buoy with active sensors only. Their emissions should be higher than the active sensor emissions of the ship to work.

2. Or we could do this by installing a dedicated countermeasures dispenser to the ship that would launch these countermeasures automatically - just like CIWS.

We could beat the normal FC controlled missiles in the same manner with chaff like the modern jets do.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Texashawk on February 17, 2013, 11:07:18 AM
I'm sure this has been proposed, but I couldn't find it in search.

Would anyone find it helpful to be able to add short notes about custom research designs (i.e. engines, sensors, etc) as an additional field when designing a new research project, and then have the notes show up in the summary box below everything else? I find that I pack a lot of 'code info' into my design names, and it gets cumbersome towards the end of a game. Having some 'sticky notes' on each component would be super handy to me when I'm trying to figure out what I meant to accomplish with a certain missile design or engine design after some time off playing the game. I would think that something like this would be trivial as a programmer to add - it's just a simple text box control and a text field added to the design database, but only Steve knows for sure...
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: ollobrains on February 18, 2013, 06:24:26 PM
Get hyperdrives working properly esp for extra large systems
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Paul M on February 19, 2013, 06:19:08 AM
As I pointed out in the bug thread the current laser "fluff" decription is wrong.  IR lasers are longer wavelength than UV lasers.

As a suggestion I would change the way the range and power increase is implemented.  Larger focal systems would increase laser range, while higher frequency lasers would do more damage.  I don't actually think there is any correlation between laser energy and the frequency in reality but for pulse packages likely you can pack more photons of a shorter wavelength in the same time so you up the energy in each pulse.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: xeryon on February 19, 2013, 06:28:23 AM
Or even skip hyperdrives and allow people SM in LPs. Either by just adding an LP to the largest body orbiting a star or by adding an additional system body.

You could possibly negate most of the need for manual LP adding and hyperdrives by making the systems 2nd 3rd and 4th stars create their own LP transit points. In a ridiculously large system the main outlier stars LP would be unusable but a star orbiting it would have a decent LP to use
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: TheDeadlyShoe on February 20, 2013, 08:42:10 AM
* Put Crew Quarters in their own category in ship design.
or
*Sort Engineering Quarters above Crew Quarters

It gets really annoying when removing Engineering Spaces, because the design panel keeps adding and removing Small and Tiny crew quarters - so engineering spaces keeps shifting around in the Components list.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: ArchRylen on February 21, 2013, 11:43:37 AM
Ribbons (bulk assigned medals)

I would like to flag officers and ships that participated in various activities.  For instance, I would like to decorate the folks who helped investigate and drive off precursors from an archeological site.  Or recognize the command and crew of my terraforming vessels for successfully completing an assignment.  I can hunt through each ship, find the appropriate officer, and then make an award.  But I'd like something easier.

The Naval Org tab on the Task Group Orders seems like a good place to put a button allowing me to award a medal to every member of a TG.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: swarm_sadist on February 21, 2013, 08:10:24 PM
I would like to suggest having a list filter in the ship design screen, next to the race filter, to split the list of ships into military, fighters, missiles, PDCs, civilian(crown), civilian(private), and replace the show civilian design tickbox to show foreign designs.

I would also like:

-Something similar to planetary defence centres, but not armoured like a nuclear bomb shelter. These could be built by a construction brigade out of dirt, snow or rock found in the area, with a few resources for components. Another possible feature is to have them be similar to a fortress network (like the Atlantic Wall or Maginot Line) facing an enemy, which could be expanded upon as you add more 'components' to said network.

-Components for said construction, such as airfields and hangars(cheap, cheap space for fighters), ammo dumps (cheap space for munitions, but stored like cargo), casemates (weapon positions similar to turrets on ships, but cheaper) OP/FOB/Fort (fortified fighting positions to increase the defence against land assaults), bunkers (to house and protect ground units from bombing), etc.

-The ability to classify a planet as an outpost, which would limit the total population to a small size.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: TheDeadlyShoe on February 22, 2013, 05:06:58 AM
+1 for outposts

Quote
I would like to suggest having a list filter in the ship design screen, next to the race filter, to split the list of ships into military, fighters, missiles, PDCs, civilian(crown), civilian(private), and replace the show civilian design tickbox to show foreign designs.
you can sort by hull type and size.

sometimes I also use a naming scheme wherein all civilian designs start with a numeric designator such as X100 or Y250.  this sorts them to the end of the list. I use Z for PDCs.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: xeryon on February 22, 2013, 06:52:21 AM
-The ability to classify a planet as an outpost, which would limit the total population to a small size.

I second this.  Sometimes you just don't want/need 25m population on a system body.  Especially far outlying colonies with high colony costs.  Your civilian fleet ends up expending ridiculous resources trying to build and populate something that you only maintain for strategic value.  A couple extra check boxes to limit growth to hard coded options or even an entry field that specifies population limits for the civs in the same place where you can currently disable after 25m.  It sure would add a unique RP element for me when I check on an extreme outlying outpost that has a population of 750.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: TheDeadlyShoe on February 24, 2013, 11:04:09 AM
*Ground unit theme names.

I would love to able to set default names for ground units. IE if I train up 5 Mobile Infantry, it might name them Security Company or Feudal Levy or Response Team or Armored Raiders.  It's kind of a  pain to rename them one by one, too much to bother with, especially in a multi faction game.

Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: boggo2300 on February 24, 2013, 02:55:47 PM
*Ground unit theme names.

I would love to able to set default names for ground units. IE if I train up 5 Mobile Infantry, it might name them Security Company or Feudal Levy or Response Team or Armored Raiders.  It's kind of a  pain to rename them one by one, too much to bother with, especially in a multi faction game.

This would be Very nice! especially for those pesky multi-faction start games with actual Earth size populations!

Matt
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Jackal Cry on February 26, 2013, 01:20:16 AM
1) All time interrupt events should show up in the System Map when you have Show Events turned on.  Currently, no message is shown there when a Task Group receives a conditional order to refuel.  Presumably it also occurs with other conditional orders.  This should show up in the System Map wit the Task Group receiving the order, and the order given.

2) I wish I didn't constantly get Unrest Increasing and Unrest Decreasing messages.  I have two colonies with some infrastructure and one ground unit each.  I get Unrest Increasing messages constantly due to overpopulation and a low population protection factor.  Each message is followed or preceded by an Unrest Decreasing message saying my ground unit decreased the unrest to zero.  I wish the two messages somehow canceled out so that neither appeared.  At least, I wish they didn't appear in the System Map with Show Events turned on.

Where do I see a colony's unrest level, anyway?
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nightstar on February 28, 2013, 03:26:12 PM
Quote
Anyway, back to the main topic: I'd like a task for shipyards that auto-builds slipways, in a similar way to continual capacity expansion. Constantly expanding my FAC SYs gets annoying.

EDIT: For the same reasons, I'd like an auto construct ship option.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Conscript Gary on March 01, 2013, 02:31:33 AM
Once the fighter combat bonus bug is sorted out, it might be interesting to have said bonus help the fighter dodge hostile missiles.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Zatsuza on March 01, 2013, 10:48:39 AM
Planet busters, Nova bombs and Quantum Singularity Manipulation-- those are all in the far future methinks :P

Personally I'd love to be able to create a commercial PDC so I can station it at a gas giant and use it as a refueling station.
Give it an orbital habitat, a recreation module and a few sorium harvesters and boom, fleet refueling base. . .
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Brian on March 04, 2013, 06:34:20 AM
This suggestion came from the thread about fixing missile damage and the amm spam attack tactic.

How about a hybrid of the current ablative system, and the system it replaced many versions ago.  The old system was each level of armor prevented 1 point of damage from each hit.  So with two points of armor a missile doing 1 point of damage was effectivly doing nothing.  The same hit with a base damage of 3 would be getting 1 internal damage point.  The armor was not changed as the ship took hits.  Steve later changed to the ablative armor and multiplied how much armor was recieved for a given tonnage by 4.  What would the effect of having every 4 points of the current armor depth stop 1 point of incomming damage?

For example a ship is hit with multiple strength 4 hits and has 4 points of armor.  Currently each hit would leave a crater 3 wide with only the center being 2 deep in the armor.  A couple of hits in the same place and the armor is breached.  With the system I am proposing the 1st hit on any column would only do three points of damage and would not penetrate to a deeper level of armor.  It would however reduce the damage reduction to zero so the next hit in the same place would do more damage.  I would take 3 hits in the same position for any internals.  Compared to the old style where after two hits the armor was breached and waiting for any addidtional damage to be internal.

If you increased the armor to 5 depth then the first two hits on the same place would be weakened and the rest would work the same as the previous example.  In both cases the ships would be immune to 1 point hits untill some other source of damage had put some craters in the starting armor.

Some consequences that come to mind are that non square warhead sizes would become more important.  With the examples above a 5 point warhead would have double the penetration of a 4 point warhead.  I could also see a 6 point warhead being fairly usefull for the same reason against heavier armors (8 - 11 points of armor depth.)  This would be less of a point for really big missiles as they have the room for a bit larger warhead, but for the missiles people usually use (size 4-6) it could have a major impact on missile design.
The change would also make long range beam combat more interesting as weapons doing minimal damage at their extreme end would not be hurting a ships armor.  Larger slow firing weapons that do lots of damage even at max range would have an advantage, as would particle beams with their fixed damage at all ranges.

Small 1 point damage weapons would still have a purpose however in taking down a targets shields.  Small 1 point damage missiles could also be used to help saturate enemy point defense and take down the shields so the heavier missiles that follow could get in close and have a chance to inflict damage.  If they inflict enough damage then the small missiles could finish off a target.

The one major question I would have is if this would be to hard to code in.  Each shot would need to compare the damage being done to the amount of armor remaining in the specific column being hit.  This might add to much processor time to be worthwhile.

Brian
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: alex_brunius on March 06, 2013, 05:38:09 AM
This suggestion came from the thread about fixing missile damage and the amm spam attack tactic.

How about a hybrid of the current ablative system, and the system it replaced many versions ago.  The old system was each level of armor prevented 1 point of damage from each hit.  So with two points of armor a missile doing 1 point of damage was effectivly doing nothing.  The same hit with a base damage of 3 would be getting 1 internal damage point.  The armor was not changed as the ship took hits.

...

The one major question I would have is if this would be to hard to code in.  Each shot would need to compare the damage being done to the amount of armor remaining in the specific column being hit.  This might add to much processor time to be worthwhile.

Brian
I agree that giving some damage resistance is the way to go Brian, but there are several ways to do it.

Other hybrid armor systems that might work is to introduce a multiplier (Aurora seems to love those) and/or armor types.

A multiplyer could work by adding a techline providing armor "hardening" using the same values that fuelconsumtion multiplier use (start at 1.0 and go down towards 0.1).

What this basically would do is reduce incomming damage by n where n is a specified design choise in a dropdown during ship design. The multiplier would work by multiplying armor weight and n.

Let's say you want armor hardening level 3 to reduce all incomming damage by 3, you first need at least 3 levels of normal armor (one per hardness). Added to your armorweight is then the weight multiplied by 3.0 (level 3 hardening * 1.0 base tech efficiency). If needed for balance purposes this multiplier could ofcourse be changed to a bigger value.

The result is that armor design becomes a choice between hardness and thickness, having both while more effective due to synergy quickly becomes prohibitly heavy. The beauty of the system is that most ships will be able to afford a hardness level 1 negating AAM spam, or at least forcing heavier payloads on AAMs.

The other solution would be to use different armor/damage types. Keep the basic armor mechanic but add a few different damage types, for example explosive (missiles), energy (beam) and kinetic (rail/gauss gun). Each type gets a corresponing new armor tech line and every level of research reduce damage by one, but the trick is that you can only choose one resistance type when designing your ship. Most today would choose explosive resistance due to the abundance of missiles, and there we have it, a simple system where small missiles are punished.

Once armor is gone however we seem to agree that no resistance should apply and even 1dmg weapons work at full effect.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Konisforce on March 06, 2013, 10:37:29 AM
EDIT: For the same reasons, I'd like an auto construct ship option.

Auto-construct ship would be great, or (another step down the rabbit hole) a build queue per shipyard, but I understand that might be a bunch o' crazy.

+5 for outposts!  Would really help with my RP.  Some ruins planets are worth colonizing, others should just be overgrown research stations.  If not outposts, then having some flexibility in the 25m cut-off for source / stable / destination would be great.

Also, on the hyperdrive / SM LPs issue . . . I was just sayin' in something else that of the 5 LPs, the one we get is L5, the trailing 60 degree one.  Maybe outlying stars in binaries could have an jump point at the L1 or L2 binary.  That'd be closer than the one trailing 60 degrees.  Buuuuuuutt, the math involved in the L1 and L2 is a pain, and the math with the L4 and L5, not so much.

Hyper drive is more strategically interesting, but until the ships default to using it when appropriate (and fuel is used correctly, too) it's just too much micro-managey even when it works.

I've actually gotten in the habit of deleting any new systems that have really distant binaries, a possibly habitable world, and no jump points to get there.  I just don't have the brain wavelength to remember it's out there if I don't use it, and the last thing I want is some NPR coasting in 10 years after I found a colony saying hello.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: xeryon on March 06, 2013, 01:15:26 PM
There is a delete star button in the System Properties screen with SM on.  You don't need to wipe the whole system to get rid of offending outlying bodies.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Konisforce on March 06, 2013, 02:08:26 PM
There is a delete star button in the System Properties screen with SM on.  You don't need to wipe the whole system to get rid of offending outlying bodies.

I'm usually secretly hoping I re-roll a binary with a jump point to the outlier . . .
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Beersatron on March 06, 2013, 07:38:02 PM
This is half-bug, half-suggestion.

I am kiting a big-bad and slowly whittling it down with my fleet set to follow at a safe distance. The contacts name changes due to the damage that I am inflicting and my fleet decides to stop because it can not find the target anymore.

I frantically made another order for them to move the frack out of the way but they are trained at 25% and it took precious seconds to move. I lost 2 BBs and 1 CC, half my total firepower, before I managed to get out of range again. I now barely have enough firepower to whittle it down.

Would it not be better if the contacts displayed in the order list were the ship names only, and not contain the shields/speed etc?
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: alex_brunius on March 07, 2013, 09:30:45 AM
Give us a reason to spread our labs around a bit. It's not logical that they all should be focused on earth (or what your starting colony is called), but just like with mines you need to move them around and expand.

1.) A new lab called "field lab". It works a bit like an auto mine, and only require for example 20000 workers instead of 1 mil. To balance it is twice as expensive as a normal lab.

2.) Divide ruins into two parts, the science part and the recovering physical installations part. To be able to recover tech from them you need to move at least one lab and scientist there and start working on a sceintific project, to speed up the process more labs can be moved there. This needs to be balanced so that it pays you back around 100% more RP then invested per tech level higher the ruin is.

3.) Field labs can also be built as a big ship/space station component (similar in size and cost to orbital habitats), so you can build science stations that provide research to the colony they orbit.

4.) Add "anomalies". These can be located on planets and give a local bonus in one certain fields of research, for example +50% power and propulsion research on that planet. Anomalies can also be out in space related to jump points, for example a stalbe or unstalbe wormhole allowing travel for crafts with no jump engine without building a jumpgate.

5.) Studborn researchers, sometimes a researches refuse to leave his colony, so if you want the bonus the labs need to move to the colony instead!
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Erik Luken on March 07, 2013, 10:03:23 AM
Give us a reason to spread our labs around a bit. It's not logical that they all should be focused on earth (or what your starting colony is called), but just like with mines you need to move them around and expand.

1.) A new lab called "field lab". It works a bit like an auto mine, and only require for example 20000 workers instead of 1 mil. To balance it is twice as expensive as a normal lab.

2.) Divide ruins into two parts, the science part and the recovering physical installations part. To be able to recover tech from them you need to move at least one lab and scientist there and start working on a sceintific project, to speed up the process more labs can be moved there. This needs to be balanced so that it pays you back around 100% more RP then invested per tech level higher the ruin is.

3.) Field labs can also be built as a big ship/space station component (similar in size and cost to orbital habitats), so you can build science stations that provide research to the colony they orbit.

4.) Add "anomalies". These can be located on planets and give a local bonus in one certain fields of research, for example +50% power and propulsion research on that planet. Anomalies can also be out in space related to jump points, for example a stalbe or unstalbe wormhole allowing travel for crafts with no jump engine without building a jumpgate.

5.) Studborn researchers, sometimes a researches refuse to leave his colony, so if you want the bonus the labs need to move to the colony instead!

I like 4.

As for spreading them out, I usually end up doing so because of ruins.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: alex_brunius on March 08, 2013, 03:16:01 AM
As for spreading them out, I usually end up doing so because of ruins.
Guess that is a matter of playstyle, just hauling the recovered components home has been more simple for me so far.

If I spread labs around it's only for RP or population (very rare) reasons.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: TheDeadlyShoe on March 08, 2013, 05:12:16 AM
Anomalies are a good idea no matter what.  Right now there's not really enough reason to expand to the stars, anomalies would be a great way  to encourage and reward exploration.   Planets, stars, gas giants, black holes, etc. could provide bonuses to research fields, or make available special research projects that must be completed on site that give bonuses or make available special tech (like Advanced Railguns.)

Honestly, if I had my druthers, I'd take research labs out of the game entirely (or hack it so each race had a fixed number of 'phantom' research labs) and rebalance research costs so they weren't as exponential.  Ideally this would make tech specialization both more important and more rewarding, and eliminate runaway teching.  It is weird that conquering a world full of low-tech schmucks nets you a doubling of your research capability. ^___^

EDIT - To detail how that might work.

Regardless of your industrial potential, you get 4000 base rp / year.  4000 rp/year is the base output of a current 500m population start.  Smaller starts would still have full research capability, but it would be burdensome in terms of wealth.  Larger starts wouldn't have any direct advantage other than technology being relatively cheaper.  For purposes of being similar to Aurora's current system, it's split between 10 'phantom labs' that each generate 400 rp.

Scientists get field bonuses just like they do now, and admin ratings that vary from 2-10 labs.  This ensures admin skill is always relevant.

Currently, tech costs increase as following. I'm using Capacitor Recharge Rate as a reference.

1: 1000
2: 2000
3: 4000
4: 8000
5: 15000
6: 30000
8: 60000
10: 125000
12: 250000
etc.

Each tech is twice as expensive as the previous tech.  This wouldn't work with a flat base RP scheme.

A problem I see with this scheme is that even if your race is specialized in a certain field, any race of equivalent tech level can be almost as good at it for a relatively paltry amount of RP.

1: 2000
2: 3000
3: 4000
4: 5000
5: 6000
6: 8000
8: 10000
10: 12000
12: 15000

Though the costs don't hike nearly as much it might actually be harder to get to some of the higher techs, because it's much harder to expand research capability.

More specialization might not necessarily be the greatest thing in some ways, since rushing tech is a bit easier.  However, I think that would get kept under control by the same thing that keeps Auroras tech scheme under control: in Aurora breadth in technology is extremely important.

The big advantage of a flat base RP scheme is that it allows small high tech factions and big low tech factions to exist.  In Aurora right now economic might = research might for all intents and purposes.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: ollobrains on March 10, 2013, 01:17:34 AM
Fuel Harvestor module tech tree expansion i think the baseline is 50000 per unit.  Why not add another say 5 levels each level adding 10000 liters per level ( fuel refineries have tech expansion)
So
Level 1 - 50000 L
Level 2 - 60000 L
Lv 3 = 70K
Level 4 = 80 K
Level 5 = 90K
Level 6 = 100K

As ship sizes scale up would provide for an offset to the fuel crunch by allowing fleets to have a harvestor or two
Just an idea for tech scale up.

Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: ollobrains on March 10, 2013, 01:43:42 AM
i found a planet where humans would require infursturcture.  I Genetically modified and created a human 2 race now the colony 3 jumps out from earth had humans on it so i sent human 2 there and removed the humans.  Now im getting messages that human 2s are still resenting minority status even though all other original humans have been removed and their colony buildings etc sent over to the new ones.  Seems to be a bug or a ability to change the race on a planet but the unrest still rises
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nightstar on March 10, 2013, 03:40:37 AM
IIRC, sorium harvester rate is 20000 l, multiplied by base mining rate tech. (Maybe by fuel production tech as well?) Anyway, it does go up.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: ollobrains on March 10, 2013, 05:30:32 AM
ah so its base mining technology that affects it ill test it in my game just to confirm but thanks

edit yup seems to work as intended thanks night star
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Thundercraft on March 10, 2013, 07:47:25 AM
I recommend adding a [Default] button on the "Game Details" and "Create New Game" windows.  It would be quite useful to new players who are afraid of playing around with the settings without being able to remember what the "default" settings are.

Also, I recommend a [Quit] button on the "Game Details" window.  The "Create New Game" window has one.  But the only way to quite "Game Details" is by clicking the [X] in the corner.  And that has the side-effect of starting an empty game, with a narrow game menu appearing and requiring the player to select "Exit" from the "Game" menu to confirm.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: ollobrains on March 10, 2013, 10:10:05 PM
I recommend adding a [Default] button on the "Game Details" and "Create New Game" windows.  It would be quite useful to new players who are afraid of playing around with the settings without being able to remember what the "default" settings are.

Also, I recommend a [Quit] button on the "Game Details" window.  The "Create New Game" window has one.  But the only way to quite "Game Details" is by clicking the [X] in the corner.  And that has the side-effect of starting an empty game, with a narrow game menu appearing and requiring the player to select "Exit" from the "Game" menu to confirm.

good idea
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: chrislocke2000 on March 13, 2013, 07:28:45 AM
Given the new crew, survivors and PoW tracking it would be good to have the ability to redistribute them across a TG in much the same way that fuel and maint supplies can be reallocated at the moment. Obviously this could throw up some significant complexities on crew morale and dealing with splitting up PoWs ahead of being interrogated but this could be solved through:

- Disallowing transfer of PoWs untill they had been "processed"
- Simple averaging of new crew v existing crew morale
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Vynadan on March 18, 2013, 11:46:05 PM
When using the (relativly) new Production Overview I can see most major operations in a single empire through the four tabs, but I feel like it's still missing something:

Adding a fifth tab to display the task of shipyards themselves (adding slipways, etc) and not just the ships under construction would help a lot - Particularly in the early game years when building up shipyard capacity I find myself often looking through the industry tabs of all empires to see if any shipyards are idling because I missed their finishing message in the event log.

With 3+ factions it can still be a hassle to scroll through all their individual prod. overviews to check all their imminent events. The overview is still a grand feature, but sometimes I wish for a "ghost faction" (or possibly a function of the SM race?) that displays the imminent events of *all* factions at once to get all info in a single screen / on one look.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: sloanjh on March 22, 2013, 09:20:59 AM
Another tilt at the size-1 missile windmill:  (detailed discussion in http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,5525.msg61571.html#msg61571)

1)  Add a fixed-size "guidance package" requirement to all missiles of e.g. 0.5 MSP (missile size point).  This would give a size-2 missiles 3x the usable volume of a size-1 missile.  It doesn't have to be called a guidance package (the last time I proposed this I think the concern was that even a big computer is much smaller than a MSP), it just needs some technobabble to justify it being a significant fraction of an MSP.

2)  Fix the "why doesn't my armor tech affect my ability to armor missiles" problem as follows:  Missile armor is treated as ship armor, with a factor of 1/20 thrown in to account for the MSP/HS size ratio.  So 1 armor point (which can absorb 1 warhead strength point) on a ship is the equivalent of 20 MAP (missile armor points).  This means that a str-1 warhead can kill any missile with up to 20 MAP.  Beyond that, you could either treat the missile as having a single armor column to absorb hits or continue with the probabilistic kill formula (probably a lot less coding/book-keeping).  The reason for doing this is:

3)  Allow size-0 (or almost-size-0) warheads to kill missiles.  The easy way is to say that the missile itself does 0.05 strength points of "kinetic kill" damage.  This is enough to kill 1 MAP, with lower kill probabilities on armored missiles and no chance of scratching a ship.  And since we've got the guidance package mass, we don't run into the previous problem with micro-missile exploits - the minimum size of a missile is the guidance package size.  The reason this is needed is that the guidance package overhead will nerf size-1 AMM, so they need some other mass savings to make them effective.

[EDIT] 4)  Round warhead damage in increments of 0.05.  This would allow you to build an AMM with a str-0.15 warhead for dealing with incoming missiles with 3 MAP (note that I'm assuming the missile itself has 1 MAP, so a 3 MAP missile requires you to buy 2 MAP (0.1 HS) of armor. [/EDIT]

I think there's a lot of goodness here:  Fixing the missile armor problem by making missile armor and ship armor more closely related, fixing the issue that a str-1 warhead will be overkill for most unarmored missiles, pushing the balance towards beam PD for taking out big, heavily armored missiles, solving the AMM spam issue, ...

John
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Brian on March 22, 2013, 11:58:02 AM
Another tilt at the size-1 missile windmill:  (detailed discussion in http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,5525.msg61571.html#msg61571)

1)  Add a fixed-size "guidance package" requirement to all missiles of e.g. 0.5 MSP (missile size point).  This would give a size-2 missiles 3x the usable volume of a size-1 missile.  It doesn't have to be called a guidance package (the last time I proposed this I think the response was that even a big computer is much smaller than a MSP), it just needs some technobabble to justify it being a significant fraction of an MSP.

2)  Fix the "why doesn't my armor tech affect my ability to armor missiles" problem as follows:  Missile armor is treated as ship armor, with a factor of 1/20 thrown in to account for the MSP/HS size ratio.  So 1 armor point (which can absorb 1 warhead strength point) on a ship is the equivalent of 20 MAP (missile armor points).  This means that a str-1 warhead can kill any missile with up to 20 MAP.  Beyond that, you could either treat the missile as having a single armor column to absorb hits or continue with the probabilistic kill formula (probably a lot less coding/book-keeping).  The reason for doing this is:

3)  Allow size-0 (or almost-size-0) warheads to kill missiles.  The easy way is to say that the missile itself does 0.05 strength points of "kinetic kill" damage.  This is enough to kill 1 MAP, with lower kill probabilities on armored missiles and no chance of scratching a ship.  And since we've got the guidance package mass, we don't run into the previous problem with micro-missile exploits - the minimum size of a missile is the guidance package size.  The reason this is needed is that the guidance package overhead will nerf size-1 AMM, so they need some other mass savings to make them effective.

I think there's a lot of goodness here:  Fixing the missile armor problem by making missile armor and ship armor more closely related, fixing the issue that a str-1 warhead will be overkill for most unarmored missiles, pushing the balance towards beam PD for taking out big, heavily armored missiles, solving the AMM spam issue, ...

John
I like the entire package sugested here.

Brian
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: alex_brunius on March 23, 2013, 03:08:28 AM
I think it feels strange that civilian lines immediately start launching ships with ultra modern engine technology right after you researched a new level.

Fuel efficiency advances should be adapted quickly (since it affects their profitability), but in general I think the modern new engine types should be pretty widespread in your military before being passed down to civilian use. Right now it's quite the opposite due to the time it takes to research engine models, finding a slot to build them and call ships back for refits or retool shipyards for new constructions.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: ardem on April 02, 2013, 12:56:29 AM
One thing I been waiting for a long time (besides my many posts on improvements to ground combat <grin>) is the ability to target components or have a weapons designed to temporary disable engines.

Things like the Ion Canon in star wars, which brings down the ships systems for a short period. Alternative would be to target engines only, the reason is to allow for more opportunity for boarding. Currently the system relies on two things luck to score engine damage and a fast enough ship to board without getting splattered. Plus your damaging the ship you want to board.

I understand it could be open to exploit so I feel the canon should be a short range weapon, like a Microwave weapon. the alternative would be to be able to target with lasers invidiual systems (AKA weapon systems, engines, sensors) The would give more weight to laser or close in weapons and open a vast array of new strategies. Even Laser fighter might be given a real role.

Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: alex_brunius on April 03, 2013, 03:50:20 AM
the alternative would be to be able to target with lasers invidiual systems (AKA weapon systems, engines, sensors) The would give more weight to laser or close in weapons and open a vast array of new strategies. Even Laser fighter might be given a real role.
It would still require you to get very close. I can't imagine being able to specifically target subsystems unless the weapon already has well above 100% chance to hit the target.

A simple way to do it would be to just take hitchance -100% for the chance to hit subystems. 140% chance to hit = 40% chance to be guaranteed a hit on a specific subsystem.

Such a system could be included together with giving FCs above 100% base chance to hit at very close ranges.

Another related thing I wanted for a long time is making bigger targets easier to hit (instead of having speed being the only factor). My first Aurora experience I tried out Gauss fighters and was puzzled that they had almost no chance of hitting a 60000 ton stationary civilian ship from minimum range. Sure their guns are small and inaccurate but not being able to hit a target 200 times their size from point blank, that is getting silly!

I would also love to see more detailed info in the log, so why not make it expandable so that the info is there when you want it only??

+ X Hit target Y for 5 damage
++ Base Chance to hit 64%, final chance to hit 40%
+++ Chance to hit due to target speed 84% (*64% = 54%), ZZZZ km/s / AAAA km/s
+++ Chance to hit due to target size 60% (*54% = 32%), BBBB ton / CCCC ton
+++ Chance to hit due to crewrating 125% (*32% = 40%)
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: ardem on April 03, 2013, 07:21:16 PM
I would be happy in regards to chance to hit needing to be over 100% it make sense.

In no way do I suggest bypassing armour or shield, what I am suggesting is that you still need to core armour, but the chance to hit the said for component is guaranteed if you gain a to hit in that area. I like your thoughts about it above.

I would be nice to knock out engines and board, especially for civilian style vessels, this adds another element to game play. I think boarding should be a increase in gameplay.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Kirkegaard on April 04, 2013, 05:55:55 AM
When using win 7 on a laptop with a screen resolution on 1366 x 768, even with the minimize height on, I often can't see the bottom line in most windows. Could you maybe add a scroll function?
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Charlie Beeler on April 04, 2013, 07:27:45 AM
When using win 7 on a laptop with a screen resolution on 1366 x 768, even with the minimize height on, I often can't see the bottom line in most windows. Could you maybe add a scroll function?

A bit of searching would helped.  The minimum vertical resolusion is 800.  Various people have post several solutions to get around this issue in the FAQ above.  And scrolling can't be added unless Steve migrates the base code out of VB6, which won't happen anytime soon.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: TheDeadlyShoe on April 04, 2013, 11:11:04 AM
You should be able to see p much everything with Reduced Height Windows on 1366x768.

You could try shifting the Start bar to the left or right side of the screen rather than the bottom.

Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Kirkegaard on April 06, 2013, 02:23:08 AM
Thank you for your replies. I will try to work around it.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nightstar on April 06, 2013, 05:00:18 AM
Auto surveying of some sort. Say, clicking a button on the galactic map to mark a system for survey. Survey ships with no orders head for the nearest marked system.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Icecoon on April 09, 2013, 08:59:12 AM
If you captured a colony on the same planet as yours, it would be nice to have a button that could merge the two colonies on the same planet. It would be helpful for the multi-faction starts.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Konisforce on April 09, 2013, 11:07:11 AM
2 things, neither terribly vital:

1st is a 'rich-man's problem' regarding infrastructure.  Having had commercial freighters take privately produced infra to my colony, now that it's CC 0, I'd love to be able to 'donate' it back to private industry.  Meaning: I have a large pile of infrastructure that I have to either move myself or put out contracts for someone else to move.  I'd rather not do contracts, simply because then the private freighters will prioritize that over anything else, and I'd have to pay for it.  Would rather have it go back into the pool of private infrastructure (like from the Wealth tab) since I have effectively maxed out the current supply of infra for my extra-solar colonies.

2nd would be variable tractor beams (I know it was mentioned in the 5.2 thread, thought I'd throw it in here).  Either a basic difference in size (like with engineering sections or fuel storage) that have a ceiling on the size of ship they can pull, or else a tech-tree with a designable component with size, strength, (maybe fuel consumption), maybe even # individual beams to pull multiple smaller ships up to the max strength.  Not really a suggestion to fix a problem, but mainly because I want to go nuts on the module ship design concept.  Fighters pulling drop tanks, PD modules, that sort of thing.  Though I'm sure the programming could get pretty hairy trying to do that.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Havear on April 24, 2013, 09:43:35 AM
Here's an idea I'm passing along that I rather like: Add custom "weights" for colonies, and just give the current location of the ship a bonus weight. If left at the default values they behave as they do now (population based iirc), but there's also a box to add a custom modifier amount that'll tweak its priority up or down. It could be useful, for example, to direct all shipping off the well-traveled routes to pick up equipment near the interstellar boundary. You could even add a multiplier to shipping cost based on the custom priority mod to simulate shipping route subsidization.

EDIT: I should mention that the above is for civilian shipping lines, so you can prioritize which worlds are being traded at.

Also, two other ideas:
- I know this has been mentioned before, but I'd *really* like a commercial hangar. Likely larger than a military hangar and unable to reload weapons.
- Maybe some sort of really, really pathetic civilian weapon system as commercial? Like, say, a minimum tech gauss cannon? It just strikes me as odd that no commercial ships can be armed in any way, shape or form. Or, just had a thought: Beam weapons more than, say, four tech levels behind par are commercial, signifying enough development time that they're solid, reliable units and old enough they're not considered a threat to the military.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Kof on May 01, 2013, 06:50:10 AM
UI enhancement request.

Adding a button to allow the user to set a planetary global Reserve Level in the Population and Production screen (Mining/Maintenance Tab), which would set a reserve level for all minerals on that planet would be helpful, especially for scenarios where only one or two minerals are being mined on a planet. Lets reduce needless clicking :-)
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: alex_brunius on May 03, 2013, 08:34:16 AM
I would love to see an improvement for Population growth and spread mechanics.

Suggestion 1:
Add a new value called something like Natural Population Capacity for planets, based on how close they are to optimal race conditions and actual available area size of the body. Geological activity and % water would subtract from the available area effecting this negatively. This could also effect terraforming so that even if average temperature is 30 deg too high/low outside the acceptable interval there will still be a few areas (perhaps 2% max area) that can be settled with colony cost 0, so the actual colony cost is set to 0 but with a very low population capacity until average temperature is closer to race optimal. Everything above the cap is treated as normal requiring infrastructure.

This value is supposed to model how many people can comfortably live on a body without major infrastructure investments (modelling "normal" buildings fairly close to ground level and fairly spread out with a good percentage left for farming and industry/jobs for everyone).

For Earth it would probably be a 2000-6000 million (we have infrastructure today and are not living sustainable with food for everyone), but for bodies not perfectly terraformed or smaller, for example Mars (0.28 of earths area) or even smaller inhabitable moons it would be much lower.

If we say 4000 million for Earth it would be less then 1000 million for all Jovian moons as an example.

Growth % would be a function of how far from this cap you are.

Basically the mechanic means there is a cap on how big population can enjoy col cost 0 without infrastructure, but you can still always use infrastructure (at say cost one or two) to go above it if you want.

I'm not sure if odd gravity should influence how many that maximum can live on a body, perhaps high gravity should at least influence it negatively, what do you think?

Suggestion 2:
Add a new way of priority for what colonies are preferred by colony ships when there are multiple possible destinations. The two major things influencing where we move today are, is there work available there? and is it a comfortable place to live?
So the desirability of a colony should primary be modeled after this, an ideal colony would have a major shortage of workers and also an abundance of available spare room for colonists.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: smerdis on May 05, 2013, 12:52:51 AM
"Civilian Construction" events should not be interrupts.  Once the shipping lines get moderately rich, they start launching new ships every couple of weeks, making autoturns much less effective.  Knowing that the civilians have a new freighter (or 10) is not mission-critical information.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Person012345 on May 05, 2013, 05:02:40 AM
I would love to see an improvement for Population growth and spread mechanics.

Suggestion 1:
Add a new value called something like Natural Population Capacity for planets, based on how close they are to optimal race conditions and actual available area size of the body. Geological activity and % water would subtract from the available area effecting this negatively. This could also effect terraforming so that even if average temperature is 30 deg too high/low outside the acceptable interval there will still be a few areas (perhaps 2% max area) that can be settled with colony cost 0, so the actual colony cost is set to 0 but with a very low population capacity until average temperature is closer to race optimal. Everything above the cap is treated as normal requiring infrastructure.

This value is supposed to model how many people can comfortably live on a body without major infrastructure investments (modelling "normal" buildings fairly close to ground level and fairly spread out with a good percentage left for farming and industry/jobs for everyone).

For Earth it would probably be a 2000-6000 million (we have infrastructure today and are not living sustainable with food for everyone), but for bodies not perfectly terraformed or smaller, for example Mars (0.28 of earths area) or even smaller inhabitable moons it would be much lower.

If we say 4000 million for Earth it would be less then 1000 million for all Jovian moons as an example.

Growth % would be a function of how far from this cap you are.

Basically the mechanic means there is a cap on how big population can enjoy col cost 0 without infrastructure, but you can still always use infrastructure (at say cost one or two) to go above it if you want.

I'm not sure if odd gravity should influence how many that maximum can live on a body, perhaps high gravity should at least influence it negatively, what do you think?

Suggestion 2:
Add a new way of priority for what colonies are preferred by colony ships when there are multiple possible destinations. The two major things influencing where we move today are, is there work available there? and is it a comfortable place to live?
So the desirability of a colony should primary be modeled after this, an ideal colony would have a major shortage of workers and also an abundance of available spare room for colonists.

I actually like both of these ideas. I'm against a population hard-cap, but if you can increase it with infrastructure that's fine.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: xeryon on May 06, 2013, 11:42:06 AM
I agree.  A more dynamic approach to populations seems like it could be fun.  That would harken back to the games Starfire roots with planets having class that correlates to population and production capacities.

You could keep colony cost as a value for required infrastructure to habitate (or pitch it entirely) but have an additional value that equates to how far outside of absolute perfect the environment is. Take into account gravity deviation, available water, and so on.  The resultant value determines a planets population capacity and anything above that also requires infrastructure to grow.  Would make a unique new facet to gameplay and give a use for later-game vast stocks of infrastructure that always end up laying around.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Omnivore on May 09, 2013, 08:50:47 PM
Require that the civilian shipping line creating a civilian mining colony have freighters (even if they aren't required to actually move the magical civilian mining complexes into place).

Recently had a situation arise where only one line existed and had no freighters yet was popping up civilian mining colonies, this was causing me numerous problems to the point where I just abandoned every civilian mining colony as soon as it was created and finally used SM mode to create another shipping line which *finally* built freighters.  The original line would not build freighters regardless of the number of outstanding shipping contracts, the inability of their colony ships to actually move anything due to lack of infrastructure at destinations, or the amount of money I gave them through subsidizes.  Note that after giving the original shipping line a subsidy they did quickly build yet another colonizer that they couldn't use.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Bgreman on May 10, 2013, 12:43:17 PM
Civ shipping lines and civilian mining colonies are completely distinct.  There is no relation whatsoever between the two mechanics.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Omnivore on May 10, 2013, 12:59:59 PM
Civ shipping lines and civilian mining colonies are completely distinct.  There is no relation whatsoever between the two mechanics.

There should be.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: alex_brunius on May 10, 2013, 01:52:51 PM
There should be.
Agreed, would be interesting with a game mechanics where it actually was major civilian mega-corporations that was responsible for all shipping, civilian mining as well as all the civilian industries in an empire. Each civilian outpost would be owned by a corporation.

It always struck me as strange aswell that the civilians can build infrastructure without any duranium cost so that would be nice to solve.

For example:
* Double all duranium in the game and have the civvies focus on mining this as well as send it home to private manufacturing that build trade-goods and infrastructure out of it.
* New building: Civilian Factories, buildable by corporations only, used to builds all consumer goods and aims have enough to hire X% of the bodies population.
* Service Industries divided into Service Sector and Private Manufacturing, where X% of the population works.

You could let them buy your duranium aswell for an extra income, and they wouldn't have to build civilian mining outposts but leave all mining to you.

This would also mean the civilian industries of a body can collapse if there new supplies for duranium are not located.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: sloanjh on May 11, 2013, 11:15:18 AM
Recently had a situation arise where only one line existed and had no freighters yet was popping up civilian mining colonies, this was causing me numerous problems

I don't understand why this caused you problems - you had three things you could do:

2)  Build mass drivers.
3)  Forego the minerals in favor of taking tax revenues.

John
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Omnivore on May 11, 2013, 12:05:35 PM
I don't understand why this caused you problems - you had three things you could do:

2)  Build mass drivers.
3)  Forego the minerals in favor of taking tax revenues.

John

Addressing this in reverse order so you can see where the lack of understanding arises.
3) Not a solution -- the minerals present on at least one of the bodies in question was very rare.  Not a strategically sound option to let it go to waste.  Nor is the alternative viable, buying the minerals, due to lack of income.
2) Had mass drivers, doesn't address the economics or strategic values in any way (in other words doesn't change the situation).
1) Building/using my own freighters to, presumably, carry infrastructure to the colonies so that the existing civilian line's ships would be useful and generate income, exacerbates the problem as it requires construction of additional infrastructure prior to shipping.  Which costs money and, presumably, discourages or at least fails to encourage the shipping AI to build freighters.  In other words, it encourages the shipping line to continue in unfavorable practices.

Now reading the context of my original quote, you can see that I tried alternatives such as placing shipping orders and providing subsidies to the original line.  Even in the presence of the shipping orders, the line misspent the subsidies on building yet another colony ship it couldn't use instead of the freighter it could have used profitably.

Whether or not there is any connection whatsoever between shipping lines and civilian mines is beside the point.  Somehow these civilian mines are being placed.  I'm not providing the freighters for that operation.  Should not the freighters be provided by the shipping lines for that purpose?  Even if the actual shipping of the civilian mines continues to take place auto-magically, I suggest that a civilian shipping line owned and operated freighter be present for that purpose.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Hawkeye on May 11, 2013, 11:38:06 PM
Mining colonies:
You don´t want to buy the minerals _and_ you don´t want the civies to have the minerals?
Well, there realy is no third option - I don´t see your problem here, except, you want to mine yourself.
If so, place a colony on the body after surveying it and the civies will not put a civilian mining colony there.

Shipping lines:
AFAIK, the type of ship created by the shipping line is random, so you just had a series of bad-luck rolls.
While this is tough luck, it is nothing to get worked up about. Perhaps the shipping line specialized in orbital sight-seening runs or somethig like it (yes, the passengers in a cryogenic transport won´t see a whole lot).
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: forgottenlord on May 22, 2013, 07:16:54 AM
Mentioned this in the previous thread but thought I should repost:

New order: R&R: Task Group stays in orbit around sufficiently populated planet/ship with rec module until the Crew months has dropped to zero.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: metalax on May 22, 2013, 07:27:27 AM
Add "refuel from own tankers" to conditional orders list. It is present in the standard orders but not in conditional.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: waresky on May 29, 2013, 08:16:56 AM
ICONS! ICONS! More deep in "RolePlaying" and evolution in Appeal :

http://zho.berka.com/rules/war/ship_counter.shtml

WE have need to IMPROVE satisfaction,appeal and feeling for growth on Aurora's playability...

NEW Map appeal :Example obviously : http://www.travellermap.com/ (zoom in and CHECK how r Awesome this work...Steve know very well Traveller's Universe..Aurora recall most of traveller's Fashon Universe...but..WE NEED MORE LOGISTICAL WORLD,more Mineral capability and a NEW Jump Concept for a New Aurora Era..SPEED,growth,Conquer..Battle..FUN!)

Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: SpikeTheHobbitMage on May 31, 2013, 01:05:32 PM
Quote from: Hawkeye link=topic=5896. msg62900#msg62900 date=1368333486
Mining colonies:
You don´t want to buy the minerals _and_ you don´t want the civies to have the minerals?
Well, there realy is no third option - I don´t see your problem here, except, you want to mine yourself.
If so, place a colony on the body after surveying it and the civies will not put a civilian mining colony there.

Shipping lines:
AFAIK, the type of ship created by the shipping line is random, so you just had a series of bad-luck rolls.
While this is tough luck, it is nothing to get worked up about.  Perhaps the shipping line specialized in orbital sight-seening runs or somethig like it (yes, the passengers in a cryogenic transport won´t see a whole lot).

Having been in this situation:  He can't afford to buy the minerals (no money) and can't afford to let the civies have them (rare minerals).   With a completely hosed civ economy, he's toast.   The only way to avoid this is to colonize every body that has minerals as soon as it is discovered.
Ship creation is supposed to be random, but there is something wonky with it.   I was on my fifth game before I saw a single civ ship, and then only freighters.   I had 3 good planets with infrastructure waiting for four game years, but no civ colony ships.   Subsidizing only pops more freighters.

Count me in on 'fix hyper drive'.   I've had 2 games in a row with a nice colonizable planet with artifacts at Gliese 563. 2-B.   95000m km one way.

In the Task Groups screen, it would be helpful if a fleet in orbit around a body listed that as part of its location, not just the system.

On the F3 System Map screen it would be helpful to be able to highlight bodies who's planetary survey is done, but not the geological survey.   It would also be helpful to show geological survey data in the F9 System Information table, perhaps as 'G' instead of 'S' in the system body survey column.   At present, the only way to know if a body has had a ground survey is to have a colony on the body (cluttering colony lists with cruft) and then look in the Summary tab under F2.

Allow F2 to be sorted alphabetically.   Allow group by function within systems, not just systems within functions.

Save player notes in the database, attached to various objects.   Notes on a ship design, for example, could be appended to the class summary.   This would be particularly helpful in the Environment/GMC tab so a player can record terraforming targets for all gasses, not just the active one.

In Class Design screen, allow Hull Types to be deleted.   At present there are many listed that I will never use, and it makes finding the ones I want harder.   Allow sorting the Class list by Hull Type abbreviation (and show this in the Class name).  eg "TT Tanker 1" in the list instead of just "Tanker 1".

Allow non-SM player to apply starting RP.   If there is not enough RP left, apply remaining points as a partially researched project.   At present the remaining amount is not always visible everywhere the Instant tech button is available, and SM mode does not check.   There is also no way to apply partial research to use up any remaining points without going over.

SM able to give ships to civ lines.

Iron Man start - no techs, one factory, one lab.

Allow idle population to produce a small amount of production and research.

Robotic Factories - like Automines but for production.
Hydroponic Farms - reduces amount of population needed for farming.
Cloning Centers - increases population growth rate.

Scripting support would be really nice too.   And a pony.  ;)
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Starfyre on May 31, 2013, 07:24:58 PM
As for suggestions, is there any reason why we couldn't make laser minuaturization tech also apply to plasma carronades or particle beam weapons?  It sounds like it basically works by cheaping on the recharging hardware, which should apply equally to all beamy weapons.  Which I suppose means it would also apply to meson cannons and HPMs, but I'm a little leery about those from a balance perspective.   Properly handled meson FACs are brutal enough without the ability to pack another 2-3 cannons onto the same platform.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Erik Luken on May 31, 2013, 08:37:39 PM
Allow non-SM player to apply starting RP.   If there is not enough RP left, apply remaining points as a partially researched project.   At present the remaining amount is not always visible everywhere the Instant tech button is available, and SM mode does not check.   There is also no way to apply partial research to use up any remaining points without going over.

The RP is merely a guideline for start, not a hard and fast rule.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: SpikeTheHobbitMage on May 31, 2013, 10:29:12 PM
Quote from: Erik Luken link=topic=5896. msg63178#msg63178 date=1370050659
The RP is merely a guideline for start, not a hard and fast rule.

True, and it can also be set to an arbitrary value at game start.   That SM is free to ignore it if they want to isn't a problem either.   That there is no warning for those who do want to use it, is an annoyance.   It also seems to me to be an incomplete feature.   The suggestion that it be usable (and a hard limit) for non-SM is based on the assumption that SM mode exists so an SM can set up a game for a regular player, and lock it so that player can't see or modify SM-only data.   Allowing a regular player to spend SM allocated points allows the SM to set a limit, while still allowing the player room for choice in game setup, just like in a regular tabletop game.   With that in mind, a non-SM Fast OOB using the Ship and PDC points in the same manner would flush it out nicely.

In any case, I'm going to add to my wishlist:

Allow the System Locations Available list in Task Group Orders to be sorted by name.

Allow Order Delay to apply to any order,  (I'm not actually sure what orders it does apply to) or add a generic 'wait' command.   This could be used in supply line control.

Add a Refuel until Full command.   This would wait until there is enough fuel for a full tank before filling.

This would allow long haul units, like surveyors, to ensure they leave with a full tank, especially if the supply point isn't a reliable source.

This would also allow a tanker to be set in a loop hauling between a specific gas miner and a specific colony without wasting fuel.   Presently there are three choices:
1) Have the gas miner deliver fuel.   This is bad on several counts:
a) The gas miner is not as fuel efficient as a dedicated tanker, so it wastes fuel.
b) It takes the miner out of service during delivery, slowing production.
c) Neither the source nor destination can be set.
i) The nearest colony might be a mining colony, with no fuel needs, and possibly in the wrong direction.
ii) The nearest gas giant to that colony may have poor accessibility, and again, be in the wrong direction.
2) Manage the tanker manually.   Very micro-managy.
3) Set the tanker in a loop between a gas miner and a colony.   This is bad because the tanker will usually leave the miner with a partial tank.   In extreme cases, it may not have enough fuel to reach the colony, and become stranded.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: swarm_sadist on June 01, 2013, 03:43:18 PM
Bulkheads: Adds mass and cost, but improves the HTK of the ship.
Maintenance Corridors: Improves the repair ability slightly and gives the ship some HTK.
External Weapon Loader: Helps a ship rearm another ship's external tubes, and faster than a maintenance module.
Deck Loader: Loads a fighter's missiles (including externals) at an increased rate.
Mimic Device: Makes the ship look like another (larger) ship, at the cost of fuel. Being hit by the 'proper' resolution will reveal the ruse.
Pheonix Device: Creates a population of a certain type of species on a planet using stored embryos and dedicated teaching robots, without requiring an actual population.

Make it so that electronic hardening will protect completely against smaller emitters, or make it so the protection provided is dependent upon the size of the HPM being used.

EMP warheads for missiles to hit shields, destroy unprotected sensors and disable manufacturing.

Give smaller HPM the ability to hit entire stacks of missiles, destroying their internal sensors.

Give missile the option to greatly increased their sensor range, but limit them to detecting and targeting one ship. (Staring sensors as opposed to scan sensors).
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: sonofliberty on June 02, 2013, 03:26:41 PM
Since shore leave is now basically a requirement, why not add an order for it? That way you can just schedule it in like other orders.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Bgreman on June 03, 2013, 12:18:30 PM
Save player notes in the database, attached to various objects.   Notes on a ship design, for example, could be appended to the class summary.   This would be particularly helpful in the Environment/GMC tab so a player can record terraforming targets for all gasses, not just the active one.

Several places in the game already allow notes, including class designs, individual ships, and officers.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: waresky on June 03, 2013, 05:00:25 PM
Actually, 4-Jump step,for strategical Maintenance and refuel are TOO FEW ( on "list of command" )

Raise to 8-Jump asap.

Another : Too many planets with tora-tons good minerals..BUT too, not realistic, hard to expansion, low level ACCESSIBILITY.

Steve : remember more easy and PLAYABILITY feeling on "TRAVELLER" Universe..in any System, can put an Outpost.

Please : re-thinking Expansion possibility, SOl System are a "normal" situation everywhere into space, for G Star..or K (V main sequence).

Megatraveller or Traveller example pls, are better for "feeling" and "role playing atmosphere", tons of Systems connected..

(hope r understandable..:))..)

Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Starfyre on June 03, 2013, 05:11:14 PM
Quote from: SpikeTheHobbitMage link=topic=5896. msg63160#msg63160 date=1370023532
Save player notes in the database, attached to various objects.    Notes on a ship design, for example, could be appended to the class summary.    This would be particularly helpful in the Environment/GMC tab so a player can record terraforming targets for all gasses, not just the active one.

I *would* like the box for player notes in the enemy ships tab to be bigger.   I tend to jot some pretty extensive supposition and speculation there once I start managing to salvage/shoot at differing enemy classes, and the given space is really small before you need to start scrolling.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Shipright on June 05, 2013, 09:02:54 PM
Artificial Gravity on ships.

I know this is sort of abstracted in the "crew quarters" components, but I don't think they should be.  If you think about it it's a major technological breakthrough (and probably not possible in real life).  Early tech ships should not have it or have to use a lot of space/resources to get it.

I envision two tech lines.  Large physical rotating components that can provide a certain level of gravity for a certain number of crew.  The percentage of gravity provided of your racial norm along with the percentage of crew provided with gravity should affect moral, deployment length costs, and combat readiness.

Eventually have a higher level technology layer for a more "magic" technobabble device that produces artificial gravity via fiat without the large rotating sections.  The trade would be while much small they use power from generators to provide the various levels of gravity.

You could add several modifier techs to improve the capabilities of this components like power required to gravity produced modifiers and so on.

Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: SpikeTheHobbitMage on June 06, 2013, 01:46:54 AM
Quote from: Bgreman link=topic=5896. msg63230#msg63230 date=1370279910
Several places in the game already allow notes, including class designs, individual ships, and officers.

Thanks for pointing that out, I'm still still learning my way around.

Still, it could be expanded in a few useful ways.   Having the design notes show in the class summary would make them visible in the individual ship screen for easy reference.   Being able to record terraforming goals for a colony beyond the current gas would save some hassle too.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Charlie Beeler on June 06, 2013, 07:29:45 AM
Artificial Gravity on ships.

I know this is sort of abstracted in the "crew quarters" components, but I don't think they should be.  If you think about it it's a major technological breakthrough (and probably not possible in real life).  Early tech ships should not have it or have to use a lot of space/resources to get it.

I envision two tech lines.  Large physical rotating components that can provide a certain level of gravity for a certain number of crew.  The percentage of gravity provided of your racial norm along with the percentage of crew provided with gravity should affect moral, deployment length costs, and combat readiness.

Eventually have a higher level technology layer for a more "magic" technobabble device that produces artificial gravity via fiat without the large rotating sections.  The trade would be while much small they use power from generators to provide the various levels of gravity.

You could add several modifier techs to improve the capabilities of this components like power required to gravity produced modifiers and so on.

If I recall correctly, this was discussed back during original game development.  Basically the gravity effect for the crew is a side function of the inertialess drives.  For Standard Aurora I don't see Steve changing this and I think it has been discussed in Newtonian Aurora, but have no reference to what may have been decided.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Shipright on June 07, 2013, 01:27:41 PM
Not taking into account inertia just means we are pretending our crews are not splattered against the aft bulkhead when accelerating to the speeds we use.  That is indeed hand waving a real force of physics.

What I am talkin about is gravity that keeps your feet on the floor, which ouside of rotating sections is just scifi magic.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Charlie Beeler on June 07, 2013, 02:41:21 PM
Not taking into account inertia just means we are pretending our crews are not splattered against the aft bulkhead when accelerating to the speeds we use.  That is indeed hand waving a real force of physics.

What I am talkin about is gravity that keeps your feet on the floor, which ouside of rotating sections is just scifi magic.
Absolutely.  It's a fundimental handwave for Standard Aurora.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Shipright on June 07, 2013, 08:30:58 PM
Well it (artificial gravity) shouldn't be! In my humble opinion ;)

Think about it, large Babylon five type stations, Venture Star rotating sections.  Or a lucky shot that takes out the gravity generator instantly reducing the combat effectiveness of a ship while you imagine all the bridge crew suddenly clinging to their controls.  I think its pretty cool and I like anything that makes ship design more unique.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: SpikeTheHobbitMage on June 11, 2013, 04:18:42 AM
In the Galaxy Map, known one-way jump gates are not highlighted.  As they are of strategic importance, perhaps such gates could be highlighted at just one end?  I would suggest the end that has a gate, as an out-facing gate would be visually connected to the controlling player's system, while an in-facing gate would be visually disconnected, emphasizing foreign advantage.

A way to change an Alien race's fleet icon in the Galaxy Map would be nice as well.  Swarm getting the Enterprise A is ironic, to say the least.  ;)
[/edit]
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: waresky on June 11, 2013, 04:12:05 PM
Forgiving ANY "boring" realistic otpions.

Combat, NPR less buggy, more 4-Core efficiency in "running Aurora"..

More playability.
Not "Ocean Deep" and "Lost situations".

P-L-A-Y-A-B-I-L-I-T-Y

End.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: SpikeTheHobbitMage on June 17, 2013, 08:02:18 PM
Allow Civilian fleets to use Conventional Engines.  This would allow effective early colonization for Conventional start.

/Yes, I've moved infrastructure to 3 promising worlds with a conventional freighter by year 5, and can't afford to build a colonizer due to Mercassium shortage.  TN tech is expected in just over 10 years.  I was banking on a Small L0 popping about 2 years ago.

For the record, the only 'cheating' I did was swap out the starting Naval shipyard for the equivalent Civ shipyard so I could build my freighter.

On a related note, ships (and missiles?) do not lead their targets when navigating.  This means a slow Conventional powered ship can get stuck chasing an inner planet because it can't catch it, and isn't smart enough to go the other way.  It could also prevent slower ships and missiles from intercepting faster targets that would otherwise be reachable.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Shipright on June 18, 2013, 09:32:53 PM
It would be nice to have a small initially available ground unit that simulates a small landing team for role playing purposes.  I spend the first few years of a conventional start sending small space craft to Mars and beyond (just an engine and a requireds) to role play the first manned missions to solar bodies.  It would be cool to have a size 100 GU called "explorers" or "away team" to simulate/role play these historic firsts or later in the game missions to the surface of planets.  No real stats, just a role playing I was there sort of thing, you could actually have an assigned officer be the first to set foot on the Mars.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: SpikeTheHobbitMage on June 18, 2013, 09:58:42 PM
It would be nice to have a small initially available ground unit that simulates a small landing team for role playing purposes.  I spend the first few years of a conventional start sending small space craft to Mars and beyond (just an engine and a requireds) to role play the first manned missions to solar bodies.  It would be cool to have a size 100 GU called "explorers" or "away team" to simulate/role play these historic firsts or later in the game missions to the surface of planets.  No real stats, just a role playing I was there sort of thing, you could actually have an assigned officer be the first to set foot on the Mars.
That is exactly how I used my GeoSurvey Team.  True, I was hoping they might actually do a survey, but the RP worked nicely.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Shipright on June 18, 2013, 10:47:43 PM
Yeah that works sort of but since they are 250 in size there is no way to do it in the early game and its still cumbersome as hell in the late game at that size.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: SpikeTheHobbitMage on June 18, 2013, 11:42:21 PM
Yeah that works sort of but since they are 250 in size there is no way to do it in the early game and its still cumbersome as hell in the late game at that size.
Geology Survey team, not Construction Brigade.  No size, and any ship can transport them.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: SpikeTheHobbitMage on June 19, 2013, 12:54:46 AM
A central screen to manage teams.
Specifically:
-List all teams, # members, score, and current location.
-A dropdown box listing ships/colony at current location to transfer to.
-A button to disband the team (with confirmation).
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Erik Luken on June 19, 2013, 02:44:11 AM
A central screen to manage teams.
Specifically:
-List all teams, # members, score, and current location.
-A dropdown box listing ships/colony at current location to transfer to.
-A button to disband the team (with confirmation).

Isn't this already all on the team tab of the economics screen?
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: SpikeTheHobbitMage on June 19, 2013, 10:48:33 AM
Isn't this already all on the team tab of the economics screen?
F2 Economics only works for teams on planets, and you must find the correct planet.
F6 Ships only works for teams on ships, and you must find the correct ship.  Even knowing the correct ship doesn't help if they are on a civilian ship.
F4 Commanders only works if you know who is on the team.  Searching by bonus helps, but it can still take a while.

There is no way to list all teams together, their status, and their locations.  This makes it very easy to misplace them.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Shipright on June 19, 2013, 06:11:07 PM
Quote from: SpikeTheHobbitMage link=topic=5896. msg63496#msg63496 date=1371616941
Geology Survey team, not Construction Brigade.   No size, and any ship can transport them.

Ah, got it thanks!
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: chrislocke2000 on July 11, 2013, 01:55:22 PM
Would be good to see drones as an option to fighters.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/23276968

Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Conscript Gary on July 12, 2013, 04:46:41 AM
Retaining deceased officers until the turn after their death would be nice. Too often I've seen 'has died in an accident' and find myself frustrated that I can't review their accomplishments and accolades in life.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Darkminion on July 12, 2013, 03:20:57 PM
Quote from: Conscript Gary link=topic=5896. msg64056#msg64056 date=1373622401
Retaining deceased officers until the turn after their death would be nice.  Too often I've seen 'has died in an accident' and find myself frustrated that I can't review their accomplishments and accolades in life.

This or something akin to the memorial in Xcom.  I always rename commanders after friends and try to include them in decision making processes in my games.  Also with the tonnage "Sunk" stat being added it would be nice to go over their achievements in life.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Hawkeye on July 13, 2013, 01:04:49 AM
In the Galaxy Map, known one-way jump gates are not highlighted.  As they are of strategic importance, perhaps such gates could be highlighted at just one end?  I would suggest the end that has a gate, as an out-facing gate would be visually connected to the controlling player's system, while an in-facing gate would be visually disconnected, emphasizing foreign advantage.

I support this. The (maybe) easy thing to do would be to use the routine you had in Starfire Assistant for closed warp points.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Shipright on July 25, 2013, 10:47:21 AM
RELIEF ORDERS!

So, basically I should be able to give a TG the order "Relieve TG #0001" which would make that TG go to wherever TG #0001 is and when it gets there trigger an order for "Upon Relief Move To XXX" in  TG #0001's queue.

Basically this would let you do the following for a stationary picket:

Quote
(Default Orders) Survey Nearest Asteroid
Upon Relief Move To Earth
Refuel From Colony Earth
Resupply From Colony Earth
Overhaul (Rewind Clock) Earth
Cycle

Quote
(Default Orders) Survey Nearest Asteroid
Upon Relief Move To Earth
Refuel From Colony Earth
Resupply From Colony Earth
Overhaul (Rewind Clock) Earth
Cycle

In this instance the ships would simply trade off stations but continue the overall asteroid survey mission. You could basically have this mission go on forever without any input from the player until it runs out of asteroids.  It would be great if you could add a specific delay to the Relieve order as well so that you can time it to roughly match crew rest needs.

The issue I see here is the linear way that orders are carried out. The default order would just queue up one survey location and them move on to the next order in line, so the "Upon Relief" order would have to be coded so that its not activated or moved beyond until a relieving ship with the "Relief" order gets there to activate it. In fact it if it could be coded so the ship cycles orders queued before the "Upon Relief" order until that order is activated you could have a warship on a constant patrol route.

You could have a less complicated order like "Relieve TG #0001 and send to XXX" with the relieving TG assuming whatever orders are left in the queue of TG #0001 and TG #0001's original orders cancelled and replaced with whatever location was in the relieve order, which could give you:

Quote
Relieve 2nd Defense Squadron and send to Earth

Quote
Move to Mars
Move to Titan
Move to Waypoint XXX
Move to Waypoint XXX
Move to Venus
(Cycle)

In this case the mission would continue (though perhaps from the top of the list if you can't track where in the cycled queue the target TG is at) and the relieved TG would go back to base. Unfortunately you would have to manually send out the relief TGs and queue of follow on orders like refuel and resupply but its still less intensive.

Lots of issues with this, but the gist is in a game that keeps such close track of fuel, supplies, maintenance clocks, ordinance and crew rest an option to have different groups of ship cycle between the same mission automatically could be a micro management life saver.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Saibot on July 26, 2013, 07:02:20 AM
A screen to view all teams and ground units including division/brigade heirarchy would be nice.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: UnLimiTeD on July 27, 2013, 06:32:24 AM
As far as I know, AI ships don't calculate fuel.
This creates a hole in their economy, and allows them to scout forever.
Maybe instead of not using any, at all, the ships should have a default order to return home at 10% fuel, excluding combat, but not actually face consequences if they run out.
Bar any better suggestions made that I just haven't seen.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: sloanjh on July 27, 2013, 09:49:48 AM
As far as I know, AI ships don't calculate fuel.
This creates a hole in their economy, and allows them to scout forever.
Maybe instead of not using any, at all, the ships should have a default order to return home at 10% fuel, excluding combat, but not actually face consequences if they run out.
Bar any better suggestions made that I just haven't seen.

+1.  I think the "not actually face consequences if they run out" eliminates the problems with coding up the AI, since it essentially just moves the current behavior to (fuel<10%) with an auto-order to return home when in that state.

John
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Thundercraft on July 29, 2013, 07:08:10 PM
I read an interesting suggestion on the Genetic Modification: switching between subspecies? (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,5992.msg61457.html#msg61457) thread on The Academy (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/board,19.0.html). As such, I thought I would mention it here on the official suggestions thread:

... it appears that modifying members of a subspecies is totally impossible.  :( Under the GMC drop-down, the only available option is "No Modification for Derived Species. "

I think I won't bother trying to colonize Triton after all. . .

Yeah, the current rules make GMC [Genetic Modification] mostly useless. Dropping the no remodifying subspecies limitation would do a lot to fix it IMO. It would break the limitations of genetic modification at the cost of slowing modification. It's already difficult to modify large populations anyway. Maybe bump up the rate of GMCs as well...

Perhaps it was feared players would abuse the GMC system? The wiki says:

Quote
You cannot genetically modified a previously modified species, only a base.  For example, you can drop Human Temperature Tolerance by 205 to create Homo Artcis, but you cannot drop Homo Artcis' Temperature Tolerance by a further 20%

But I see no reason why it couldn't be implemented in a way that prevents such abuse.
At the very least, a lot more players would consider using GMC if it allowed a transition from sub-species back into the base species.

What I'd really like to see, however, is the option to "convert" members of an alien species into my player race, or visa versa - either by a forced conversion or by allowing some (random number?) of volunteers to undergo a conversion.

Anyway, it sounds like genetically modified species are still buggy. It seems to cause serious unrest / rioting problems based on prejudice - even in cases where there are no baselines present to treat them poorly:

i found a planet where humans would require infursturcture.  I Genetically modified and created a human 2 race now the colony 3 jumps out from earth had humans on it so i sent human 2 there and removed the humans.  Now im getting messages that human 2s are still resenting minority status even though all other original humans have been removed and their colony buildings etc sent over to the new ones.  Seems to be a bug or a ability to change the race on a planet but the unrest still rises
...I just started producing genetically engineered "Lunies" on Earth.  Every 5-day, I now get a "Unrest Increasing"/"Unrest Ruthlessly Suppressed by Ground Forces" pair of messages which interrupt auto-turns.  I assume it's coming from "Unrest Increasing", and I'd like to turn it off.  [snip]...i.e. the interrupt is forcing me into 1-click-per-turn mode.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: joeclark77 on July 30, 2013, 01:15:08 PM
I read an interesting suggestion on the Genetic Modification: switching between subspecies? (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,5992.msg61457.html#msg61457) thread on The Academy (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/board,19.0.html). As such, I thought I would mention it here on the official suggestions thread:

Perhaps it was feared players would abuse the GMC system?
I would assume it's because you could get a much-lower temperature tolerance without doing the research.  Instead of studying temperature minus 30, you could just do a temp minus 10 modification three times.  At any rate I don't think the solution is to modify modified species.  I think this actually creates a good incentive to go out and conquer alien species, so you can modify their races to make new types of slave populations.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Thundercraft on July 30, 2013, 06:15:47 PM
I would assume it's because you could get a much-lower temperature tolerance without doing the research.  Instead of studying temperature minus 30, you could just do a temp minus 10 modification three times.
Fair point.
However, it should be possible to have the game measure from the base species when calculating how much temperature or gravity tolerance/adjustment to allow and how much it costs - giving the same results as if one had just modified the base species.

But, again, I see no reason why we shouldn't be allowed to return a modified species back to the original base species. If nothing else, this would allow us to get our base species back in cases where we don't have many of those left in the immediate area.

At any rate I don't think the solution is to modify modified species.  I think this actually creates a good incentive to go out and conquer alien species, so you can modify their races to make new types of slave populations.

Heh. I really don't think players need an added incentive to go out and conquer other races. Largely, that seems to be what players do - or what they aim to do. :P Anyway, as it is, modifying alien species for your own purposes is a tempting idea. And I don't see how having the ability to re-modify your own species or return them to their base state would detract from any of that.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Steve Walmsley on August 03, 2013, 08:38:26 AM
*Ground unit theme names.

I would love to able to set default names for ground units. IE if I train up 5 Mobile Infantry, it might name them Security Company or Feudal Levy or Response Team or Armored Raiders.  It's kind of a  pain to rename them one by one, too much to bother with, especially in a multi faction game.

For v6.30, you can change the default names of ground unit types for each Empire using a button on the GU Training tab of the Economics window. For example, in my current campaign the French have changed Assault Infantry to Légion étrangère. You can also change the associated abbreviation.

When you build units of this type it will create a default name based on this new name (so 5th Légion étrangère instead of 5th Mobile Infantry)

Steve
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Steve Walmsley on August 03, 2013, 10:41:36 AM
Give us a reason to spread our labs around a bit. It's not logical that they all should be focused on earth (or what your starting colony is called), but just like with mines you need to move them around and expand.

4.) Add "anomalies". These can be located on planets and give a local bonus in one certain fields of research, for example +50% power and propulsion research on that planet. Anomalies can also be out in space related to jump points, for example a stalbe or unstalbe wormhole allowing travel for crafts with no jump engine without building a jumpgate.

I've considering something along these lines for a while and your suggestion finally spurred me into action (and provided a name) :)

There is now a chance to find an "Anomaly" on a system body. Anomalies will provide a boost for a single research field from 10% to 100% for all research facilities located on that system body. These will commonly be found at the site of alien ruins but not exclusively. There will be various types of anomalies, starting in v6.30 with the following three (unless I think of more before release)

1) Alien Installation. Usually found at the same location as alien ruins but can be discovered in isolation (any research field)
2) Unusual Radiation from Star. Innermost planet will be classed as having the anomaly  (will not be MK, CP or LG)
3) Unusual Magnetic field on Gas Giant. Innermost moon will be classed as having the anomaly (will not be MK, CP or LG)

With 2) and 3) it is possible the anomaly could be on a planet you can't normally colonise, or that has a very high colony cost. In that case you will have to decide whether orbital habitats will be worthwhile.

Steve

Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Steve Walmsley on August 03, 2013, 11:06:26 AM
i found a planet where humans would require infursturcture.  I Genetically modified and created a human 2 race now the colony 3 jumps out from earth had humans on it so i sent human 2 there and removed the humans.  Now im getting messages that human 2s are still resenting minority status even though all other original humans have been removed and their colony buildings etc sent over to the new ones.  Seems to be a bug or a ability to change the race on a planet but the unrest still rises

Unrest due to minority status has been removed in v6.30

Steve
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Steve Walmsley on August 03, 2013, 11:10:55 AM
If you captured a colony on the same planet as yours, it would be nice to have a button that could merge the two colonies on the same planet. It would be helpful for the multi-faction starts.

That won't be possible in general because the two populations could have different environmental tolerances and/or different political statuses. It would be possible for two imperial populations of the same species on the same planet but that is quite a rare situation so I haven't tackled this yet.

Steve
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Aloriel on August 03, 2013, 12:44:05 PM

It seems to me that most Brigadiers are useless, and the same applies to Major-Generals.  The problem is that once you reach R2 rank, the only stat that appears to matter is training rating.  The ground combat bonus only applies to the unit they are assigned to, and Brigade and Division HQs are rather useless in combat in general.  With that in mind, I had this thought:

Why not have a similar system to how Major-Generals transfer their training rating with ground combat bonus?

For example, a given Brigadier might have a 20% GCB.  Transfer 1/4 of this to each of the battalions under his/her command.  A Major-General would similarly provide just 1/16th to each battalion (and perhaps 1/4 to each Brigade HQ).  This would imply that Brigadiers are giving better orders to their Colonels (and so on).
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Steve Walmsley on August 03, 2013, 01:36:20 PM

It seems to me that most Brigadiers are useless, and the same applies to Major-Generals.  The problem is that once you reach R2 rank, the only stat that appears to matter is training rating.  The ground combat bonus only applies to the unit they are assigned to, and Brigade and Division HQs are rather useless in combat in general.  With that in mind, I had this thought:

Why not have a similar system to how Major-Generals transfer their training rating with ground combat bonus?

For example, a given Brigadier might have a 20% GCB.  Transfer 1/4 of this to each of the battalions under his/her command.  A Major-General would similarly provide just 1/16th to each battalion (and perhaps 1/4 to each Brigade HQ).  This would imply that Brigadiers are giving better orders to their Colonels (and so on).

The ground combat bonus of Brigadiers and Major-Generals applies to all units under their command.

Steve
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Aloriel on August 03, 2013, 01:57:31 PM
It does? Oh.     Nevermind then.     :) Glad to hear it.

EDIT: Though, upon further inspection, it doesn't appear to make reference to that in the GU display.    While I am sure that it happens in the combat itself, it would be good to have a reference to it for the player to see.

Here's an example of several garrison units.    My GU combat strength is 16 right now.    You will notice that the bottom set doesn't have any change from 16, despite having a GCB of 20% from their brigadier.    The upper and middle groups do display changes because of the Colonel's ability, but not the Brigadier.

hxxp:i225. photobucket. com/albums/dd86/aneiraelf/Groundcombatbonustroubles_zps67cd776a. jpg

(hmm, didn't like my image link.   I'll make it plain text.  )
(Ahhh! Now I understand why links and things aren't working.  Anti-spam bot.  Interesting idea! Anyway, the link info is all there.  It's a picture like I described.  Clearly I must become more active! :) )
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Khanti on August 04, 2013, 08:25:57 AM
I have some minor suggestion:
Could you please allow using different named images in Medals folder (named with numbers and letters)?
As for now only standard numbers are valid (M003, M104 etc).

Example: M056. jpg, M056a. jpg, M056b. jpg, etc

I just made a recoloured version of many medals and I will be happy to have them under similar names, rather than numbers.
You may see some of them on the picture - just remove the spaces and follow the link.

http: //img5. imageshack. us/img5/459/sacq. jpg

PS: Great game btw :)
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: sloanjh on August 04, 2013, 09:41:19 AM
One of the new players had an NPR pop into an already-surveyed system through a hidden warp point http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,6351.0.html (I'm reverse-engineering what he said) and had a LOT of trouble figuring out how to re-set the survey points so that he could re-survey.  In fact, he thought he'd done a re-survey.

He pointed out that it would be good if the button that clears the accumulated survey points in a system were non-SM-only.  +1 from me :)

John
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Steve Walmsley on August 04, 2013, 11:07:02 AM
One of the new players had an NPR pop into an already-surveyed system through a hidden warp point http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,6351.0.html (I'm reverse-engineering what he said) and had a LOT of trouble figuring out how to re-set the survey points so that he could re-survey.  In fact, he thought he'd done a re-survey.

He pointed out that it would be good if the button that clears the accumulated survey points in a system were non-SM-only.  +1 from me :)

John

Added for v6.30. I've moved the button out of the SM-only area on the System View window.

Steve
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Shipright on August 04, 2013, 10:31:49 PM

Allow us to change the name of a planet's academy. You could then have Starfleet Academy or Olympus Mons University or Titan Tech or Luna Space Academy. It would be pretty cool RP wise.

Let us have multiple academy groupings on the same planet. The purpose being that you can RP having Cambridge and Harvard and Stanford all on Earth for instance. The other reason being you make it a game play decision. Lots of lower level academies give you more officers/scientists/administrators but fewer higher level ones give you less but higher quality bonus graduates.

I believe the source of an officer is tracked already, if this is the case there should be a bonus for officers in the same chain of command being from the same alma mater but also a random corruption type penalty.

Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Saibot on August 04, 2013, 11:17:01 PM
Make changing ships and task groups between task forces more user friendly and less complicated. The dropdown menu on the task group screen doesn't work and the group always reverts back to fleet headquarters task force.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: joeclark77 on August 05, 2013, 09:10:27 AM

These suggestions could also be used in conjunction with the new "anomaly" feature or even with environmental features.  So, for example, a high-gravity or cold-weather planet may produce officers with ground combat bonuses (cold weather training...), and a planet with a sensors/electronics anomaly may train scientists with that bonus as well as naval officers with "survey" bonus.  A planet with ancient ruins may train better xenologists.  A planet with a thin atmosphere or low gravity may train better space pilots (less costly spaceflight training).
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Khanti on August 05, 2013, 03:09:03 PM
Quote from: Saibot link=topic=5896. msg64706#msg64706 date=1375676221
Make changing ships and task groups between task forces more user friendly and less complicated.  The dropdown menu on the task group screen doesn't work and the group always reverts back to fleet headquarters task force.

I would just say, that all ships-naval-fleet menus could be rewritten.  I am very glad to have economics menu (all package in one) as it is really helpful and elegant.
I hope someday similar naval menu will be available (grouping ships F6, fighters F7, task forces F12, task forces organization Ctrl-F4, ships requiring repairs Ctrl-F11, fuel situation Ctrl-F12).
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Saibot on August 05, 2013, 04:04:56 PM
Maybe if there were drag and drop functionality, instead of the way it works now.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Khanti on August 05, 2013, 07:42:26 PM
F9 shows system information which gives info about ships survey, but I can't see team's survey there.   Are there team's reports also (like: Geological Team Survey Completed NO/YES).
If not, it will be helpful to have it here.   I tend to use it more, as it shows whether space body is moon, planet, comet, asteroid.   F2 colony summary does not show this info and I am not happy to send Geo Team to comets :)

Clicking inside Potential Assignments window I can see commander detail in window Current Commander Bonuses but Additional Details (commander details) remain unaffected.  Please make it auto-refresh as well, to the same current commander view.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: IanD on August 07, 2013, 09:00:39 AM
While it is possible to select miles instead of kilometres it would be nice to have the choice of knots/sec rather than k/s or miles/s. In addition could there be a choice so that fuel could be measured in gallons as well as litres? It would make using Imperial units that much more complete.
Regards
Ian
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Saibot on August 07, 2013, 01:56:39 PM
F9 shows system information which gives info about ships survey, but I can't see team's survey there.   Are there team's reports also (like: Geological Team Survey Completed NO/YES).
If not, it will be helpful to have it here.   I tend to use it more, as it shows whether space body is moon, planet, comet, asteroid.   F2 colony summary does not show this info and I am not happy to send Geo Team to comets :)

Clicking inside Potential Assignments window I can see commander detail in window Current Commander Bonuses but Additional Details (commander details) remain unaffected.  Please make it auto-refresh as well, to the same current commander view.

Definitely would like a yes/no for team survey completion. I'm a perfectionist, but I don't want to send a team to an already surveyed body or clog up my colony list with colonies I'll 90% likely end up deleting.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Whitecold on August 08, 2013, 01:31:10 AM
The civilian contract system is very comfortable as you don't have to design routes to transport installations and can just say what you want to transport, however there are several things that could be improved.
• Allow the transport of minerals and components: This would make it possible to fully rely on chartered civilian freighters, for minerals a repeating order would be even better. To prevent civilians from picking up 2t of duranium, maybe a minimum of filling half the ship would have to be added for them to consider the job.
• Show the number current installations on planet: If 'Supply: Automine x50 (0)' was shown, you could check if your orders actually make sense, or you're trying to remove nonexistant structures.
• Allow your own freighters to take jobs: By adding a default order 'Accept transport order', you could automate your shipping, as civilian shipping is sometimes unable to cope with your demands, but still don't have to individually baby your freighters through multiple jump points for each type of installation each.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: alex_brunius on August 08, 2013, 06:55:57 PM
The civilian contract system is very comfortable as you don't have to design routes to transport installations and can just say what you want to transport, however there are several things that could be improved.
• Allow the transport of minerals and components: This would make it possible to fully rely on chartered civilian freighters, for minerals a repeating order would be even better. To prevent civilians from picking up 2t of duranium, maybe a minimum of filling half the ship would have to be added for them to consider the job.
My biggest problem with mineral transport is that it doesn't follow the general rules of refining. That is less refined materials (minerals in our case) Always take up more space/weight for transport since the very essence of refining is removing stuff.

That is not true at all in Aurora where you can fit many times more minerals in a single cargo hold then end products "refined" out of the same minerals.

Mineral freight and setting up these routes should be the core transport flows, and they should require huge civilian or imperial freighters.

In the real world what ships are the biggest of all? Oil tankers carrying raw unrefined oil![/list]
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: ZimRathbone on August 08, 2013, 08:38:44 PM
My biggest problem with mineral transport is that it doesn't follow the general rules of refining. That is less refined materials (minerals in our case) Always take up more space/weight for transport since the very essence of refining is removing stuff.

That is not true at all in Aurora where you can fit many times more minerals in a single cargo hold then end products "refined" out of the same minerals.

Mineral freight and setting up these routes should be the core transport flows, and they should require huge civilian or imperial freighters.

In the real world what ships are the biggest of all? Oil tankers carrying raw unrefined oil![/list]

I've always considered that the items created are not made up solely of the TN minerals used in creating the device, and indeed that the final device may not contain all of the minerals used in its creation (which is why when you scrap you only get a proportion of the minerals back).  For example in mu current game there is a 100mm Lightspear (Laser) which requires 1x Duranium  1x Boronide  3x Corundium to manufacture, but the device itsdelf probably also has steel, carbon fiber, plastics and various other component parts that are not accounted for in the game, presumably because the cost of obtaining these components is trivial when compared to the cost of the TN minerals.

The TN minerals are more like rare earths in manufacturing today - used in small proportions to make devices but having a significant effect on the cost.  For example the use of Neodymium (Nd), Praseodymium (Pr), Samarium (Sm) or Dysprosium (Dy) in creating Magnets or Europium (Eu) and Yttrium (Y) in making LCD displays.  Obaining these elements is not usually difficult, but it can be expensive (because of their geochemical properties, rare earth elements are typically dispersed and not often found concentrated as rare earth minerals in economically exploitable ore deposits)
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Erik Luken on August 08, 2013, 09:11:13 PM
Currently, the only mineral that needs/is refined is sorium into fuel. Maybe if the others were refined into refined forms via refineries... But that might also hasten duranium crashes.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Rolepgeek on August 09, 2013, 04:07:22 PM
Perhaps a way to restrict or influence which leader types are produced? That way, rather than having 40 ground forces officers and 2 scientists, you can have 30 ground forces officers and 6 scientists?
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Shipright on August 10, 2013, 05:44:45 PM
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: alex_brunius on August 11, 2013, 06:34:28 AM
For example in mu current game there is a 100mm Lightspear (Laser) which requires 1x Duranium  1x Boronide  3x Corundium to manufacture, but the device itsdelf probably also has steel, carbon fiber, plastics and various other component parts that are not accounted for in the game, presumably because the cost of obtaining these components is trivial when compared to the cost of the TN minerals.

The TN minerals are more like rare earths in manufacturing today - used in small proportions to make devices but having a significant effect on the cost.  For example the use of Neodymium (Nd), Praseodymium (Pr), Samarium (Sm) or Dysprosium (Dy) in creating Magnets or Europium (Eu) and Yttrium (Y) in making LCD displays.  Obaining these elements is not usually difficult, but it can be expensive (because of their geochemical properties, rare earth elements are typically dispersed and not often found concentrated as rare earth minerals in economically exploitable ore deposits)
I always thought that duranium had replaced the role of steel/plastics seeing how it's used in everything and described as the most common ore.

But even if you are right in that the cost of other materials is trivial to TN materials, the volume, weight and location of these material is not. They can't automatically be present everywhere and free in time/cost to move there.

Steel and plastics are not available in infinite quantities on earth either, especially oil used to make plastics is getting harder and harder to find.[/list]
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on August 11, 2013, 09:41:28 AM
As far as I understand the mass on components are not actually the real mass as in the total weight, it is more a combination or ratio of volume and mass. So the end product of a component will have one mass which is not equal to the mass of the mineral from the start. At least that is they way I have interpreted some posts from Steve that I have read in the past.

So, certain part of ship construction is abstracted and will not really be realistic in terms of real mass and volume. For this we would need both a volume and mass number for each component. Perhaps a stress factor level would also be needed for larger ship construction since stress on a large hull will be worse the more volume you have versus mass and sheer size is also a detrimental factor on a ships ability to manoeuvre with out breaking apart.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: alex_brunius on August 11, 2013, 11:00:12 AM
As far as I understand the mass on components are not actually the real mass as in the total weight, it is more a combination or ratio of volume and mass. So the end product of a component will have one mass which is not equal to the mass of the mineral from the start. At least that is they way I have interpreted some posts from Steve that I have read in the past.
It doesn't matter if you measure volume or mass, raw materials should still have significantly more of both compared to the final refined product ;)
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on August 11, 2013, 12:42:04 PM
I don't argue that unrefined ore would have less mass and volume than refined ore. However, there are no indication that what is mined could not also be refined at the same time. So what is shipped could actually be in its refined and pure form (Sorium being the only one we know is not refined).

With that said a construction of Duranium such as infrastructure could certainly have allot more volume than the unrefined Duranium ore, it could be several factors bigger in volume.

In my opinion you can't really know for sure what is what and ships mass is actually not its mass more it's size just noted in mass for convenience since that is a classic way of classify naval vessels in reality. Although speed and fuel usage is then calculated from it's size not its actual weight which become a little weird.

I think it would be a more legitimate question to ask why a cargo ship (or ships with hangars) require as much fuel when fully loaded as when empty. This goes for it's speed as well. The same with missile space, fuel etc.. It works for tugs.

I don't mind the simplicity as it is, but I would not mind that both volume and mass was used as well as different fuel and speed depending in the ordnance, cargo, fuel and flights carried by a ship.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: markus on August 12, 2013, 03:53:16 AM
A little suggestion:

Could we have an order to "Load Ordnance" from task groups? This would really make reloading from colliers much easier.  I tend to keep my colliers in separate TGs, and now when I need to reload, I have to merge task groups and then reload each ship individually in its details screen.  It would be much, much faster just to use single order for all ships at the same time - just as we have the "Load Ordnance" order at populations.

(Or am I missing something and doing it wrong?)
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Whitecold on August 12, 2013, 05:17:00 AM
A little suggestion:

Could we have an order to "Load Ordnance" from task groups? This would really make reloading from colliers much easier.  I tend to keep my colliers in separate TGs, and now when I need to reload, I have to merge task groups and then reload each ship individually in its details screen.  It would be much, much faster just to use single order for all ships at the same time - just as we have the "Load Ordnance" order at populations.

(Or am I missing something and doing it wrong?)

I don't have Aurora on this computer to check it, but if you designate the collier as such in the design screen, it should add reload orders to the Task Group
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Paul M on August 12, 2013, 09:09:10 AM
A minor one:  have the generated messages about an officer check their sex...so it isn't automatically "his" when "her" would be more appropriate.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Erik Luken on August 12, 2013, 09:10:31 AM
A minor one:  have the generated messages about an officer check their sex...so it isn't automatically "his" when "her" would be more appropriate.

This "feature" has been in there since the beginning. I'd certainly like to see that check also performed.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: metalax on August 12, 2013, 10:58:32 AM
The ability to edit, delete or obsolete Hull types. - Easily 80% of the list is populated by types that I will never use, and many of the ones that I do use I would prefer to be able to assign my own abbreviation.

Buttons to open the turret and missile design screens from the class design window. - I realize this may be difficult as there is limited space left on that screen.

Add SM Instant button on the missile and turret screens in the same fashion as on the component design screen.

On the Geological Survey Report screen, would it be possible to add a column indicating if the ground survey has been completed? Similarly on the System View window.

Is it possible to have the Assign Parent Headquarters dropdown on the ground units screen sort alphabetically?

Would it be possible to have an option to have ground units labelled with a separate count for each unit type rather than one count for all ground units?
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Rolepgeek on August 12, 2013, 12:54:31 PM
You can mark class designs as obsolete. Components too. Delete them, as well. Edit them, if there isn't a shipyard producing them.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Erik Luken on August 12, 2013, 01:10:53 PM
You can mark class designs as obsolete. Components too. Delete them, as well. Edit them, if there isn't a shipyard producing them.

Hull types are quite different than class designs.

I think most of us here refer to hull type when we say "cruiser", "frigate", "science vessel", etc. Class designs obviously are the specific designs. The droplist showing hull types is not filtered by game. So if you add a type, and start a new game, it shows up.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Rolepgeek on August 12, 2013, 01:55:37 PM
Ah, I see. Yeah, that would be good then, since I keep seeing class names in russian on mine.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Erik Luken on August 12, 2013, 02:09:04 PM
Ah, I see. Yeah, that would be good then, since I keep seeing class names in russian on mine.

That's Steve's fault :)
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Erik Luken on August 12, 2013, 06:03:35 PM
The ability to edit, delete or obsolete Hull types. - Easily 80% of the list is populated by types that I will never use, and many of the ones that I do use I would prefer to be able to assign my own abbreviation.

Actually, deletion is probably a bad idea. If the designations were linked to a game, then I can support that. But I think the NPR also use those designations. So game and race linked.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: metalax on August 13, 2013, 07:40:30 AM
Actually, deletion is probably a bad idea. If the designations were linked to a game, then I can support that. But I think the NPR also use those designations. So game and race linked.

Yeah, I thought that might be a possibility, which was why I put the obsolete option in there.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Erik Luken on August 13, 2013, 08:05:44 AM
Yeah, I thought that might be a possibility, which was why I put the obsolete option in there.

I've got no issue with them being deleted, if they were specific to a game/race. Since they are global... Even just a "hide" option would be nice.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: alex_brunius on August 14, 2013, 02:18:28 AM
I don't argue that unrefined ore would have less mass and volume than refined ore. However, there are no indication that what is mined could not also be refined at the same time. So what is shipped could actually be in its refined and pure form (Sorium being the only one we know is not refined).
Actually Industry is per definition refining less valuable raw materials into more valuable usable end products...

The refining chain starts with raw materials and end with a finished product and at every step mass (and often volume too) is removed and energy + value is added.

With that said a construction of Duranium such as infrastructure could certainly have allot more volume than the unrefined Duranium ore, it could be several factors bigger in volume.
Why? Today the infrastructure we use is very efficiently packed for shipping towards final assembly using steel (girders, rolls, rebar), concrete and asphalt.

All of these are certainly less volume and mass then the raw ore, coal, oil, rock and gravel used to create them.

I think it would be a more legitimate question to ask why a cargo ship (or ships with hangars) require as much fuel when fully loaded as when empty. This goes for it's speed as well. The same with missile space, fuel etc.. It works for tugs.

I don't mind the simplicity as it is, but I would not mind that both volume and mass was used as well as different fuel and speed depending in the ordnance, cargo, fuel and flights carried by a ship.
I agree, perhaps if the civilian cargo ships became bigger instead of more numerous, there would be extra calculation power over to simulate such things?
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Whitecold on August 14, 2013, 04:43:22 AM
In Missile design fuel currently only takes up a small percentage compared to the other components, meaning there are less design options. Making a missile with less fuel doesn't really give you space to add significant amount of other components.
For example, there is no point in building different ranged AMM, range is practically only determined by sensor reach, as 0.02MSP of fuel more or less don't make a difference added anywhere else.
Also more creative missile designs like two-stagers with a low powered 'march' stage are pointless, as the additional drives take up way more space than just using the space for fuel for a single, maxed drive. I never designed a missile drive with less than maximum power multiplier, which takes away the point of having different power multipliers if only one option really makes sense.

My suggestion is either to add even higher power multipliers, with even more fuel cost until the fuel necessary to propel these missiles takes up a significant amount of space.
Another possibility would be to add finite endurance to the drive after which they overheat, regardless of fuel. Higher power multipliers would have shorter endurance, with an added option to increase the lifetime of the drive at the cost of increased drive size.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nightstar on August 14, 2013, 12:40:37 PM
Whitecold> You feel that way because you aren't using a whole lot of range. Sensors can be built a LOT bigger, especially with a bit of tech. When you're trying to build a 6 MSP missile with 200+ mkm range, those observations of yours get less accurate. Now, that kind of range may be unneeded against the AI, but that's a different problem.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Thundercraft on August 14, 2013, 05:18:37 PM
I think it would be a more legitimate question to ask why a cargo ship (or ships with hangars) require as much fuel when fully loaded as when empty. This goes for it's speed as well. The same with missile space, fuel etc.. It works for tugs.
I agree, perhaps if the civilian cargo ships became bigger instead of more numerous, there would be extra calculation power over to simulate such things?

Agreed. Though, as you mention, it's more stuff to keep track of. I do like the idea of having civilian cargo ships tend towards larger sizes. That might help existing game speed issues, too.

Some related observations:

a) If shipping is profitable, more private companies will be founded and more private ships will be built.

b) The Too many civilian ships (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,6343.0.html) thread talks about an issue where civilian shipping basically explodes and becomes so prolific that it dramatically slows down the game. It seems not everyone experiences this, but it's more than one or two isolated cases.

c) Commercial Ships owned by private companies do not require fuel.

d) Ships designed with a commercial engine are much more fuel efficient, using only 10% of the fuel of a military engine of the same power.

e) Each freighter run costs 5 wealth for a same system contract and 10 wealth for an interstellar contract.

Suggestions:

Why not create a financial incentive for private companies to launch larger and larger ships as long as the routes are profitable enough to justify it? Possible solutions:

1) Have privately-owned civilian ships use a small amount of fuel and force them to deduct this cost from their profit margin. With larger ships able to haul more stuff for each round trip on the same amount of fuel (or less), they'd be more profitable. (Maybe make larger ships slightly faster, too?) If running out of Sorium becomes a concern, that might be fixed by increasing available amounts.

2) Profit maximization can be calculated as a function of revenue, minus costs, over time. Revenue is currently a fixed rate of 5 or 10 wealth per contract. With larger ships able to handle larger contracts in a single trip, vs making multiple trips, they take less time to complete the contract. Larger ships being able to handle more contracts in a give time span should have them considered more profitable. (Though, larger ships cost more to produce. So the ship should have to pay for itself before it is considered profitable and justification to produce more.)

3) Instead of a fixed rate, one could have the price of a contract vary somewhat according to the size to make larger contracts generate more revenue. (Perhaps, say, 2 to 8 for same system contracts and 9 to 15 for interstellar contracts?)

4) Alternatively, just program a preference for private companies to launch larger ships vs. smaller ones the more time passes and the more profit they gain.

Also, do civilian ships have a lifespan (in years) after which a company must retired (scrap) them? If not, something like that might eventually reduce the number of smaller ships companies will initially produce.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: alex_brunius on August 15, 2013, 01:53:02 AM
Suggestions:

Why not create a financial incentive for private companies to launch larger and larger ships as long as the routes are profitable enough to justify it? Possible solutions:

1) Have privately-owned civilian ships use a small amount of fuel and force them to deduct this cost from their profit margin. With larger ships able to haul more stuff for each round trip on the same amount of fuel (or less), they'd be more profitable. (Maybe make larger ships slightly faster, too?) If running out of Sorium becomes a concern, that might be fixed by increasing available amounts.
That sounds like the perfect opportunity to make Civilian Fuel Harvesters useful.

Suggestion:

Assign a "HQ" body for every civilian line created and create a separate fuel reserve there for every shipping line. This means they will prefer traffic between their hub/HQ since that fuel is "free".

This could also mean we could buy or sell fuel in bulk from civilian lines depending on if we or the company needs it more.

2) Profit maximization can be calculated as a function of revenue, minus costs, over time. Revenue is currently a fixed rate of 5 or 10 wealth per contract. With larger ships able to handle larger contracts in a single trip, vs making multiple trips, they take less time to complete the contract. Larger ships being able to handle more contracts in a give time span should have them considered more profitable. (Though, larger ships cost more to produce. So the ship should have to pay for itself before it is considered profitable and justification to produce more.)
If that is how it works then the logical conclusion is that those players that see a runaway civilian traffic have a big colony on luna and possibly also spaceports on both earth and luna reducing loading/unloading times. That would mean extremely frequent wealth income from very short traderuns.

Also, do civilian ships have a lifespan (in years) after which a company must retired (scrap) them? If not, something like that might eventually reduce the number of smaller ships companies will initially produce.
Yes, IIRC it's something like 15 years if a ship of the same type is launched and otherwise 20years.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Shipright on August 16, 2013, 05:07:49 PM
BIOSPHERE!!!

Something that always bothers me about planet management is that there is lots of detail in terraforming regarding atmosphere and temperature and other base factors but no attention to the biosphere. Or in other words while its nice to have a planet modified to exactly what I need for an atmosphere to be breathable, what I am basically left with is a dead desert that the game treats as a paradise as far as game play goes. So I propose adding another metric to terraforming that reflects the size, complexity and health of the biosphere.

Details:

http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,6383.0.html (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,6383.0.html)
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Aloriel on August 17, 2013, 01:30:12 AM
Shorten training time for ships.

I have 3 new ships that have been training for 1 year. The lowest training rating among all of the officers in that fleet is 250 (my highest in the entire officer pool is 375). After 1 year, they're only at 34% trained. This seems absurdly low for an entire year of training.

The ship's stats are:
Code: [Select]
FF Islip class Frigate    15,350 tons     434 Crew     3916.8 BP      TCS 307  TH 2000  EM 24006514 km/s     Armour 3-55     Shields 80-400     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 17     PPV 14.02Maint Life 2.68 Years     MSP 2711    AFR 110%    IFR 1.5%    1YR 539    5YR 8081    Max Repair 1575 MSPIntended Deployment Time: 12 months    Spare Berths 2    1000 EP Magneto-plasma Drive (2)    Power 1000    Fuel Use 34.94%    Signature 1000    Exp 12%Fuel Capacity 1,000,000 Litres    Range 33.6 billion km   (59 days at full power)Gamma R400/192 Shields (40)   Total Fuel Cost  320 Litres per hour  (7,680 per day)Single 15cm C5 Near Ultraviolet Laser Turret (2x1)    Range 180,000km     TS: 12000 km/s     Power 6-5     RM 3    ROF 10        6 6 6 4 3 3 2 2 2 1Fire Control S16 96-12000 H50 (1)    Max Range: 192,000 km   TS: 12000 km/s     95 90 84 79 74 69 64 58 53 48Tokamak Fusion Reactor Technology PB-1.15 (2)     Total Power Output 18.4    Armour 0    Exp 12%Active Search Sensor MR840-R100 8/21 (50%) (1)     GPS 105000     Range 840.0m km    Resolution 100ECCM-1 (1)         ECM 10
Previous frigates of similar design have trained in less time (about a year), but that was with an officer with over 400 CTR. These are rare officers. It just seems odd that training would take years (even a whole year is a bit over the top, but acceptable). To me, 6 months should be average.

By this measure, no ship laid down at the start of WW2 was fully trained since they take 2 years to build, and 3 years to train the crew...
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Bgreman on August 17, 2013, 02:29:19 AM
Shorten training time for ships.

I have 3 new ships that have been training for 1 year. The lowest training rating among all of the officers in that fleet is 250 (my highest in the entire officer pool is 375). After 1 year, they're only at 34% trained. This seems absurdly low for an entire year of training.

The ship's stats are:
Code: [Select]
FF Islip class Frigate    15,350 tons     434 Crew     3916.8 BP      TCS 307  TH 2000  EM 24006514 km/s     Armour 3-55     Shields 80-400     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 17     PPV 14.02Maint Life 2.68 Years     MSP 2711    AFR 110%    IFR 1.5%    1YR 539    5YR 8081    Max Repair 1575 MSPIntended Deployment Time: 12 months    Spare Berths 2    1000 EP Magneto-plasma Drive (2)    Power 1000    Fuel Use 34.94%    Signature 1000    Exp 12%Fuel Capacity 1,000,000 Litres    Range 33.6 billion km   (59 days at full power)Gamma R400/192 Shields (40)   Total Fuel Cost  320 Litres per hour  (7,680 per day)Single 15cm C5 Near Ultraviolet Laser Turret (2x1)    Range 180,000km     TS: 12000 km/s     Power 6-5     RM 3    ROF 10        6 6 6 4 3 3 2 2 2 1Fire Control S16 96-12000 H50 (1)    Max Range: 192,000 km   TS: 12000 km/s     95 90 84 79 74 69 64 58 53 48Tokamak Fusion Reactor Technology PB-1.15 (2)     Total Power Output 18.4    Armour 0    Exp 12%Active Search Sensor MR840-R100 8/21 (50%) (1)     GPS 105000     Range 840.0m km    Resolution 100ECCM-1 (1)         ECM 10
Previous frigates of similar design have trained in less time (about a year), but that was with an officer with over 400 CTR. These are rare officers. It just seems odd that training would take years (even a whole year is a bit over the top, but acceptable). To me, 6 months should be average.

By this measure, no ship laid down at the start of WW2 was fully trained since they take 2 years to build, and 3 years to train the crew...

Do you mean crew training rating or task force training?  Crew training for a ship caps out at 34%.  :-X
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Aloriel on August 17, 2013, 02:51:48 AM
Task force training, not crew grade. Crew grade for this fleet of three ships is <10% because they are brand new ships.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Hawkeye on August 17, 2013, 04:11:23 AM
Some things that come to my mind (off the top of my head, so I might be wrong too)

1) If your CO of the TG (i.e. the guy that is listed as senior officer in the TG window) is of equal or higher rang as your Task Force commander, TF boni will not apply. (I hope I remember that one correctly)

2) The TF operations officer is quite important in TG training, even more so than the Crew Training rating of your CO, I believe.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Aloriel on August 17, 2013, 11:24:59 AM
Still, shouldn't it take a significantly shorter time to train up a ship than 3 years with moderately good officers? I shouldn't need exceptional officers to keep training time below a year. It's excessively long.

For additional clarification, my TF Commander is a rear admiral (I have only 2 of these, and both are TF commanders). The officers in question are captains. They are in the same system. My rear admiral has a fairly low CTR (125), but as I said before, these captains have 250+. This is somewhat below average due to the admiral's rating. I would accept this combination taking a year (not 3) because it's only so-so. Back when I had 400+ CTR officers involved, I would expect <6 months, not the year it took.

Additionally, my TF Ops chief has an operations of +100% and 100 CTR. Outstanding, and not so great at the same time.

What ever the case, 3 years is a ridiculously long time to have to train a crew.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Hawkeye on August 17, 2013, 01:25:01 PM
I agree, 3 years is definitely too long. I can´t remember it ever taking nearly that long in my games, however.

No clue as to what could be the reason for such a long training time.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Aloriel on August 17, 2013, 01:54:43 PM
I suspect it's a combination of factors.

1) My current admiral of the TF is a fighter pilot glitch admiral. He's been admiral rank since he was 25 years old. So, his CTR is only 125. I'd put someone else in charge, but he's actually better than the *other* fighter pilot glitch admirals.

2) Operations officer of the TF has +100% ops, but only 100 CTR.

3) SO of the TG only has 275 CTR.

These produce a mediocre result, and I suspect the code scales things on a parabolic system instead of linear.

To me, training should be a maximum of 1 year in the worst case (no TF staff bonus, 25/50 CTR). Best case should be weeks, or perhaps a month. This would make the most sense realistically.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Hawkeye on August 17, 2013, 02:41:10 PM
Hm, a month sounds too short to me.

Looking at the training the japanese navy (surface ships and carrier pilots) did before WW2, I don´t realy have a problem with training times of 6 to 12 months.

While I have absolutely _no_ real navy experience, I highly doubt that a new sailor is traind to crack (or even to regular) status in a matter of 4 weeks.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Aloriel on August 17, 2013, 04:46:55 PM
When an officer dies or retires, there needs to be a separate message category for those.

Presently, Officer Health and Officer Update categories are overflowing with messages. To see when you need to replace an officer that has been killed, you have to read through a lot of messages.

If I had my druthers, I would shut off the Officer Health and Officer Update messages. It's a lot of information I don't necessarily require. I can do this now, but then I can't see when someone is killed in an accident or retires. I am certain these are critical for people who do AARs and other fiction, so I wouldn't say get rid of them.

I recommend two new categories for messages: Officer Dies (or Passes Away, or something akin to this) for deaths, and Officer Retires for retiring. These two messages would sort to the bottom of the main message screen.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Tnarg on August 18, 2013, 08:35:50 AM
These requests are mostly for roleplaying multi-nation starts.
For multi-race or nation starts, under SM:

-Unite races under one banner with one click.  Wether it is through surrender or joining as an alliance against a more dire external threat (example:US and Europe join to form The Western Alliance against former Russia and China new Eastern Confederation, or later on in the game after years of war amongst each other these two factions unite under the Terran Union when faced with the Klingon Empire).   I know that this can be done by transfer this and that from race to race, just thought it would be nice to have one button to push to seal the deal.

-Split a race for RP purposes (example:colonies on the Fringe are unhappy with the unfair and unjust demands of the Terran Trade Authority and vote to declare indepence and form the United Federation of Outer Rim Planets).  Not sure if it would be possible to offer a choice such as: this race or nation is computer controlled or this race is player controlled.   It would be even better if perhaps this happened automatically if enough colonies are unhappy and they have enough infrastructure between them to support being independent.

-Create exclusion zones, neutral zones, colony claims, system claims, blockades, or mining rights, so that if other nations entered it and was not supposed to it would be a dire hit to their diplomacy points and could start a war automaticallty or just really destroy relations to a critical point.   I know this can be role played, it would just be neat to have an event and see some mechanics at work creating "just cause".   Perhaps a featured could be implemented that sets up a certain desired distance from said object.

-An arms race component to intelligence and diplomacy.   Peace and negotiating strength through a bigger stick.   Through the use of intelligence agents one can get a summarized detail of another race and would receive a bonus if pressing an issue such as:(we will enter your exclusion zone and survey Mars because we have offensive ships to back it up and it is evident that you do not, the nation that controls the Mars exclusion zone sees this challenge as legit and are forced to back down without declaring war thus losing their precious find of alien ruins because they decide to focus on getting to Mars first rather than building up their military. )
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: wobbly on August 18, 2013, 10:39:14 AM
I suspect it's a combination of factors.

1) My current admiral of the TF is a fighter pilot glitch admiral. He's been admiral rank since he was 25 years old. So, his CTR is only 125. I'd put someone else in charge, but he's actually better than the *other* fighter pilot glitch admirals.

You could try going in to SM mode, demoting the "bugged" admirals & promoting the next officer in line.

To me, training should be a maximum of 1 year in the worst case (no TF staff bonus, 25/50 CTR). Best case should be weeks, or perhaps a month. This would make the most sense realistically.

This to me depends on whether you want to leave room for improvement. It makes sense to me to train to some level of combat readiness in a month but not to the equalivent of what you'd get from a full year's training.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Whitecold on August 30, 2013, 06:04:28 AM
A small change in missile design:
The reactors for sensors now have infinite lifetime, so the reactor space is allocated automatically. If you allocated sensors right now you have to fiddle around to get your desired size.
So my proposal is that the allocated size for sensors includes the reactor, so if you want a 10 MSP sensor buoy, you simply enter 10 in the box, and the game calculates how much of it goes to the sensor and how much to reactor space.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Rolepgeek on September 14, 2013, 11:10:34 AM
A small change in missile design:
The reactors for sensors now have infinite lifetime, so the reactor space is allocated automatically. If you allocated sensors right now you have to fiddle around to get your desired size.
So my proposal is that the allocated size for sensors includes the reactor, so if you want a 10 MSP sensor buoy, you simply enter 10 in the box, and the game calculates how much of it goes to the sensor and how much to reactor space.
I like that idea. I haven't really done much with sensor missiles, because it's annoying to try and get the exact right size and still be effective, and the lines of decimals are really ugly.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Darkminion on September 16, 2013, 01:11:06 PM
Could you allow ships to use maintenance supplies from supply ships or from planets a planets pool? I would love to setup supply bases where minimal repairs could be preformed with damage control for very distant excursions.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Hawkeye on September 16, 2013, 01:29:35 PM
In a way you can.

Repairing a damaged component cost twice the "maintenance failur repair" amount, so if you have a base/ship with lots of spare parts, you can reload your damaged ship and continue repairing.
This is one of the reasons, my ships carry at least twice as many maintenance supples as the "Maximum Repair" on the design screen says.

Note: You can _not_ repair armor in that way, but everything else is fair game.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Darkminion on September 16, 2013, 01:52:20 PM
Quote from: Hawkeye link=topic=5896. msg65713#msg65713 date=1379356175
In a way you can.

Repairing a damaged component cost twice the "maintenance failur repair" amount, so if you have a base/ship with lots of spare parts, you can reload your damaged ship and continue repairing.
This is one of the reasons, my ships carry at least twice as many maintenance supples as the "Maximum Repair" on the design screen says.

Note: You can _not_ repair armor in that way, but everything else is fair game.

I am well aware of this method.  But quite a few of my smaller ships dont hold this much.  Plus I use a ton of Marine Companies to capture NPR ships which have little to no supplies in their design.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Vordarian on September 17, 2013, 09:21:22 AM
Civilian Shipping as a separate Quasi-line, once you develop better tech and old ships get scrapped, representing proliferation of shipping tech to smaller entities than the government and the big shipping conglomerates.

-Tramp freighters
Using older, obsolete engines, small cargo holds and a different logic in choosing destinations, going for the marginal routes.  In systems with little military presence, they may try to smuggle (i. e.  transferring their cargo without paying the dues)

-Yachts
Small, fast ships flitting from colony to colony, doing nothing much, but have to be protected

-Prospectors
Small Asteroid miners going for unclaimed asteroids with deposits <500 tons.  Mined Materials may be bought (possibly via a starport?) or go into the civ economy, yielding a tiny amount of taxes

Independents

-Separatists/Terrorists
Spawned by high unrest.  Ramshackle refitted small civ ships with semiobsolete weapons.

-Pirates
May plague underpatrolled systems.  Build small asteroid outposts and small, crappy ships with semiobsolete weapons.

Wrecks
Should not be visible system-wide, but detectable normally by sensors
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: alex_brunius on September 18, 2013, 03:02:48 AM
Wrecks
Should not be visible system-wide, but detectable normally by sensors
Would also add a lot of tension if it was hard to tell a wreck apart from a stationary object with powered down (or knocked out) engines.

For example make them impossible to tell apart using grav sensor/radar. And add a small heat signature from some other components then engines, forcing you to go very close to detect if the ship is active.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: AbuDhabi on September 18, 2013, 10:56:35 AM
Quote from: SpikeTheHobbitMage link=topic=5896. msg63160#msg63160 date=1370023532
This would be particularly helpful in the Environment/GMC tab so a player can record terraforming targets for all gasses, not just the active one.

I'd love to be able to set targets for all the possible gasses, and have the terraformers work automatically towards those goals.  It's a bit of a bother to manipulate the gas settings for getting the shortest time towards breathability and tolerable temperature.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: MehMuffin on September 18, 2013, 08:13:55 PM
I'd really like to see a set of time advancement buttons in the event updates window, I find that a lot of the loading time of the game is just opening up all the information in other windows, and I like to avoid having stuff open other than updates so I have a clear idea of whether or not I actually need to do anything at the beginning of every turn.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: AbuDhabi on September 18, 2013, 09:34:47 PM
Quote from: MehMuffin link=topic=5896. msg65806#msg65806 date=1379553235
I'd really like to see a set of time advancement buttons in the event updates window, I find that a lot of the loading time of the game is just opening up all the information in other windows, and I like to avoid having stuff open other than updates so I have a clear idea of whether or not I actually need to do anything at the beginning of every turn.

You could tick "Display events" on the "Display" tab in the System Map screen. . .  but you'll need to filter events somewhat to get rid of all the superfluous stuff, otherwise you won't be able to see the map.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nibelung44 on September 19, 2013, 12:56:00 AM
2 easy interfaces suggestion:

In the list of leader assignment, show first the most recent ones, not the oldest ones. This would be easier to check what the guy did recently.

In the TG window, the first line of location should be 'here' something like 'Earth, <Here'' so we can see easily where the TG is, and so we can load stuff by using the first line, and not searching through the list 'where is my current location'.

I admire Steve to not bother with these 'details' when doing his own campaigns. The man must spend countless hours on things he could have fixed in 5 mn. This remind me of the author of Dwarf Fortress in fact  ;D
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: AbuDhabi on September 22, 2013, 03:36:54 PM
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Erik Luken on September 22, 2013, 03:47:26 PM
I believe this is already in there. One of the buttons on the Event Log screen should bring up this functionality.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: AbuDhabi on September 22, 2013, 03:54:22 PM
I believe this is already in there. One of the buttons on the Event Log screen should bring up this functionality.

The only pertinent thing I can see is "Filter events". Will this actually stop them interrupting, rather than just stop them from showing up in the log?

EDIT: That didn't do the trick.

I'm fighting this missile battle (one-sided so far, but there are more enemies than I have missiles for). It's been six hours, realtime, trying to process it. I'm finally nearly out of missiles to shoot, and maybe then the massacre my ships will receive at the hands of the decimated meson-armed corvettes will go faster. The game pauses every five seconds, game-time. I've set my ships on autofire. I want this battle to end already.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: TheDeadlyShoe on October 03, 2013, 06:28:23 AM
Suggestion for troops in fleets:  90% reduction (or more!) in load time for "Load Troops into Drop Module from within Fleet" order.   It feels silly waiting days for your elite power armor troops to lazily walk down to the hangar and board their dropships , even with cargo handling systems.  Especially with the addition of Cryo Drop Modules in 6.3... :)

@AbuDhabi, if you're still around - do you know about the "Minimum Intervals" box in the system map? You can put, say, 50 intervals in there, click auto turns and 30s, and the fights will require a lot less clicking of time buttons. :)

I believe some events do stop interrupting if you filter them, but that generally doesn't include combat events...
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Hawkeye on October 03, 2013, 12:46:20 PM
There was, what could be called a bug, in version 5.x, where a fleet of dropships loading from a fleet of troop transports would only load one ship at a time. so if you had 4 troop transports, the loading time would be 4x what you would expect.
As I haven´t done any invasion in 6.x I don´t know if this behavior is still around.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: alex_brunius on October 05, 2013, 03:40:36 AM
New Shield mechanics allowing more different designs with varying recharge time.

* Double the effective damage absorption per HS on shields.
* Remove the built in recharge, and change the tech to instead regulate minimum possible recharge time (Perhaps ranging from 900 down to 60 seconds).
* Remove fuel need and instead add a reactor/power plant requirement to shields for recharging, with equal reactor tech level a shield should need equal power plant HS to provide 300 sec recharge.
* Adding shield to ship without any reactor now gives design warning (since it won't be able to recharge at all).

If you have a shield today that provides 6 points of absorption for 2HS, with this mechanic you will instead need a 1HS shield and a 1HS power plant to recharge it with to get the exact same performance. But it also lets you design ships with a shield system with 0.1 HS reactor and very slow recharge instead for more maximum absorption, or a quicker recharging shield (if your tech allows).

This also gives a logical synergy with beam weapons since while they are not firing the extra reactor can provide faster shield recharge time, and if reactors are knocked out weapons can use shield reactors as backups.

Or you can take this all the way with a complete ship power system, involving things like tapping auxiliary power from engines and almost all systems requiring reactor/power-plant power to run. (should also come with the option to armor the now critical reactors/power plants).
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Paul M on October 07, 2013, 09:18:55 AM
From the last battle I fought...

Could the log file not be an unformated write?  Trying to sort out what happened looking at the log file is difficult as the turns events are all jumbled up.  Could instead the various things be a bit more organized so that you don't have to puzzle your way around the log file?  They appear far more organized when I look at the event listing itself, but the text file is a mess at times.

Also the fleet combat control panel list is major pain to sort out.  I can't see any rhyme or reason to the listing.  So 4th Squadron Battlegroup is not immediately above 4th Squadron Support Group and 5th Squadron...instead you have to scan through the list trying to find the ships.

Once you find the task group you wish to control it is not bad, most things can be found and you can control things fairly smoothly.  One thing that wasn't clear was the ammunition display, it took me a while to sort out when no ammo showed up in the window that meant the ship was out of ammo.  For a while I wasn't sure if no missiles showing meant there was none or you were on your last set.

A ship automatically ceasing to fire when it runs out of ammo would also be nice....not really required but it generates a lot of reports until you manually cease that weapons fire.

What I would like though is an automatic tally system that record hits on target.  Making tick marks on paper works but is prone to human errors.

Lastly, something that really looks wierd.  Ships only acquire combat experience when they take damage.  This should be changed that any time they fire a weapon against a hostile target they get experience.  They should also gain experience from after battle repairs.  They should not gain experience from taking damage.  My ships which engaged a Wolver for over 20 minutes of in game time learned nothing, they learned nothing while attacking the Wolver ships, yet the ships gained 5% in experience while being destroyed...which isn't particularily helpful.  The same is true laters.  Two long battles against a wolver ship taught my navy exactly 0.  Not single point of experience was gained.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Bgreman on October 08, 2013, 01:04:09 PM
Also the fleet combat control panel list is major pain to sort out.  I can't see any rhyme or reason to the listing.  So 4th Squadron Battlegroup is not immediately above 4th Squadron Support Group and 5th Squadron...instead you have to scan through the list trying to find the ships.

They are sorted by order of task group creation (i.e., by the database-only field "FleetID").  I agree it should be alphabetical as in many other locations.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: AbuDhabi on October 09, 2013, 06:09:53 PM
@AbuDhabi, if you're still around - do you know about the "Minimum Intervals" box in the system map? You can put, say, 50 intervals in there, click auto turns and 30s, and the fights will require a lot less clicking of time buttons. :)

I believe some events do stop interrupting if you filter them, but that generally doesn't include combat events...

I know of this. Unfortunately, there seems to be a bug where missile launches stop the game disregarding minimum increments. See my complains in the bugs thread.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: alex_brunius on October 25, 2013, 12:43:24 PM
Soft lock

Ability to lock/launch missiles with self-guidance on passively tracked targets calculated interception points. (Based on their current speed and heading as well as missile speed)
Missile would have 0% chance to hit unless able to pick up the target on it's own sensor.

This would give stealth oriented ships operating alone the ability to fire on detected targets without revealing them-self.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Whitecold on October 26, 2013, 01:47:20 AM
Soft lock

Ability to lock/launch missiles with self-guidance on passively tracked targets calculated interception points. (Based on their current speed and heading as well as missile speed)
Missile would have 0% chance to hit unless able to pick up the target on it's own sensor.

This would give stealth oriented ships operating alone the ability to fire on detected targets without revealing them-self.
You can already fire missiles at waypoints, just place one in front of the target, and you should be able to launch a salvo of self guided missiles at it.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: alex_brunius on October 26, 2013, 02:48:00 AM
You can already fire missiles at waypoints, just place one in front of the target, and you should be able to launch a salvo of self guided missiles at it.
Yes I know that, but this only works when they have already spotted you and thus are heading straight for you... Which defeats the entire purpose of operating passive only "stealth" ships that can fire without being detected.

If they have not detected your ship the missiles launched will be moving at them from an angle and you have to make trigonometric calculations yourself for an interception point based on their speed, your missile speed and that angle.

My suggestion is that the game can take care of these calculations for me.

http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,6489.msg66505.html#msg66505
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: SakSak on October 26, 2013, 08:01:18 AM
Galactic Map, System Notes Icon

It is already possible to write short notes regarding some system into the Galactic Map function mode. However, nothing in the game alerts me to systems that I have placed notes on, or otherwise find important to remember. I must remember which system was important and then select the Notes-tab to see if I had written a memo to myself regarding that system. At which point, if I remember the system was important to begin with, I might as well memorize the reason as well. This works for a small number of systems, but as the number of systems explored grows, the number of task groups to keep track of, order queues, prioritization and other topics keep increasing, the map note functionality increases in usefulness.

But only if I remember which systems I had mentally tagged as to having notes worth remembering on.

Instead, it would be preferable if there was an icon next to the system if I had written notes regarding it. A simple exclamation mark would do, attached to the system much like fleet presence symbols, empire flags or shipyard icons are. Thus, at a glance it would be possible to open the Galactic Map and see immediately which systems I have chosen to remind myself of as important or having notes on.

Tying the presence of said exclamation mark (or other symbol) into presence of a text-string in the notes-field, or a simple checkbox option, would both be reasonable alternatives.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: alex_brunius on November 09, 2013, 03:38:00 AM

It's nice that we got some more options for really small missile engines in 6.30, but it did turn the drop down menu into quite a mess.

While it's nice and important to be able to make a distinction of a 0.10 MSP and a 0.11 MSP engine (the latter being 10% larger) it is not so critical to be able to specify the difference between a 4.00 MSP and 4.01 MSP engine (the latter being only 0.25% larger) or a 4.99 vs 5.00 MSP engine.

Suggestion 1:

Change missile engine sizes to a (roughly) 10% size difference basis for clarity.

0.10 MSP
0.11 MSP
0.12 MSP
...
0.20
0.22
0.24
...
1.00
1.10
1.20
...
3.00
3.25
3.50

and so on...

Suggestion 2:

Adapt this to small (Fighter and FAC) Engines, and also change their fuel consumption values to matter as design choices. Currently you can get decent range / flight times out of Fighters even with 50% of total size being engine, Max Engine Power Mod and very small fuel-tanks (5% or less of total size). To get a feel closer to real fighters that regularly carry 25%+ of their weight as fuel and burn it in a matter of hours I think these changes would be welcome.

Size 1.0 (50 ton) still minimum size of a normal engine = x3.00 fuel consumption (using same formula as missile engine design size)
Size 1.1 (55 ton) = x2.81 fuel consumption
Size 1.2 (60 ton) = x2.65 fuel consumption
Size 1.3 (65 ton) = x2.51 fuel consumption
...
Size 2.0 (100 ton) = x1.87 fuel consumption
Size 2.2 (110 ton) = x1.75 fuel consumption
Size 2.4 (120 ton) = x1.65 fuel consumption
...
Size 5.0 (250 ton) = x1.00 fuel consumption

Note1: This also retains the option to build fighters and FACs that have fuel efficiency close to currently, but restricts it to engines size 4-5 or larger (200-250 ton).

Note2: If the same formula is used all the way down to size 50 engines it would lead to fuel consumption = -79% and mirror missile engine fuel consumption formula, but that might not be desirable. Even if it's not I think it would be useful to develop a formula that is balanced and fits for both applications though. Distinctions between missiles/ships are ensured by the different max power mod values used (and can be balanced through these as well if needed).

Note3: I actually found some more information on real fighter planes here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_fraction). It seems that fighter jets use 25-45% of weight for internal fuel and frequently add droptanks on top of that!!!
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Stardust on November 09, 2013, 10:11:16 AM
It would be convenient if right clicking a jump point that leads to a discovered system produced a drop down that allows you to go to that system's view.  The drop down might also include colonized bodies in the system and immediately connecting systems.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Erik Luken on November 25, 2013, 01:13:39 PM
Blueprints or design specs for components found in ruins.

Example: You'd find a schematic for a 15cm UV laser with C4. That pops it into your available tech window, like you'd designed it. Ideally with names like "Death Ray" or some such.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: alex_brunius on November 25, 2013, 02:40:24 PM
Id like to see some more options for smaller beam weapons, Currently (I think) we only can make gauss and laser smaller with the payoff being in accuracy and recharge time.

How about being able to miniaturize other weapons too?
Some other balancing payoffs suggestions to give them unique character:
- exceptionally high buildcost (x10 or x50 for a small version)
- almost no range
- extra energy/reactor need (without changing recharge time)
- lower damage multiplier
- higher explosion chance/damage (if it blows the ship blows)

I also think reduced size lasers are a bit overly harsh in it's modifiers, x0.5 size for 20 times recharge = 10 times less dps. Even if initial hit is twice as big the normal size can fire 2 more times and overcome this in 10% the time the reduced size takes to recharge! Missile Launchers get x0.33 size mod for the same extra time to reload.

Some of these could also be set up so that the option to make them smaller is there from the start (like gauss), but research let's you reduce the malus on the payoff. Id like that for reduced size lasers to be honest, give us the smaller lasers that have 10 times less dps from the start and let us reduce it through research :)

Ideally all beam weapons should have a size 1 = 50ton variant that is possible to unlock or comes with massive trade offs.

The main thing I want is to be able to build a small fighter armed with any weapon type and a total size no bigger then 200-250ton. But most beam weaponry have a minimum size around that!

I guess I just love the idea of a huge swarm of small beam fighters, and the idea of being able to arm your heavier fighters with backup sidearm beams no matter what kind of beams you focus on :)

So don't just give lasers all the love! They come with all the fancy options like reduced size, turrets and now even spinal mounts :P
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Paul M on November 27, 2013, 03:03:11 AM
I would like to suggest that certain actions take time that are currently done instantly now.  As these actions can be done manually and in that sense take no time it could be argued that it is odd to have them take time when done in a order but the reality is they do take time when done manually...they take the players time.

I'd suggest that refueling takes a time rated by the amount transfered 100 m3/h might be a starting point plus a fixed time to couple and decouple.  If any Navy people are about they probably know as a quick google didn't reveal a rate that I could find.

Remunitioning a ship with missiles probably should be a fixed couple/decouple time and then 5-10 min per missile space point to move it from one ship to the other.

Spares could be moved at a rate of 5 min per MSP transfered plus the fixed couple/decouple time.

The couple/decouple time isn't exactly that the two ships lock airlocks but mainly the time that is required to get close to each other and open airlock doors and exchange all the standard transfer protocols list and everything else involved in such transfers.

This would be another case where logistics skill could be used to reduce the times.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: alex_brunius on November 29, 2013, 10:01:34 AM
More logistics!

How about letting Ground units consume Supplies (MSP) especially when they are engaged in fighting?

Without it they could operate but with a huge malus due to things breaking down from combat damage and no ammo to shoot with.

Logistics is a key thing in war and if you neither can supply your soldiers nor produce supplies needed on factories at the body they are located then you should have a big problem!

If it is implemented in the harshest possible way so that ground unit needs supplies to survive this gives rise to strategies where you can even blockade enemies from supplying their ground forces, and watch them whittle and die over a matter of months/years.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: db48x on November 30, 2013, 06:10:31 AM
How about minimally-intelligent refueling? Instead of a set fuel level that triggers a refueling, have it get fuel whenever the fuel level is about to drop below the amount needed to either complete the next step of its mission or to refuel at the nearest colony/tanker.  (The 'Refuel at. . . ' settings would be the same as they are now, those are fine. )

I can't prove it would work perfectly for all cases, especially as refueling targets move around, but it would always work at least as well as the current options.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: markus on December 10, 2013, 05:38:18 AM
Now that multi-faction starts with NPR are viable, there's only one thing left that would make me very, very happy (almost like a Christmas gift!)

Making conventional NPRs work.

By that I mean, they would research TN elements and then gradually start researching all the prerequisite techs for weapons, wormhole hopping etc., build their first ships, start colonising space...  Is this too much work? They already seem to be partly working (for example, they do convert conventional industry to normal factories) but it seems the AI is confused by the missing prerequisite techs.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: DoktorV on December 11, 2013, 11:14:44 PM
Edit: Never mind, the feature already exists, it just wasn't where I expected to find it.

I would like to suggest an interface function to toggle display of civilian ships.   In some of my games they become so numerous that the lists of civilian ships crowd out other information on the system map.

Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Bgreman on December 12, 2013, 01:00:32 AM
I would like to suggest an interface function to toggle display of civilian ships.  In some of my games they become so numerous that the lists of civilian ships crowd out other information on the system map.

Contacts tab, central groupbox: Contact Filter.  Drop down and select "No Civilian" and all civilians of your race will be hidden.  Alternately, if you just want the names hidden, tick the "Hide Civilian Ship Names" box.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Xkill on December 13, 2013, 11:17:07 AM
This is just a repost of my erroneous thread that I placed on this board about a Missile/Beam Weapons only option:

What I was thinking about was having an option on the New Game Menu to restrict or limit the weaponry choices to either Missiles or Beam/Kinetic Weapons for both the NPRs, Spoilers (Perhaps with the exception of the Invaders) and the Player.

It could be like this:

Missiles only game: Missiles, Drones, etc..., as the only offensive weapons. Beam/Kinetic ONLY as PD (Can't target ships or they have really poor accuracy).

Beam/Kinetic only game: Beam/Kinetic as the only usable weapons. Missiles would only be able to be placed on Mines. Drones usable but only on non-combat (Geo/Grav Survey) or semi-combat roles (Active/Thermal/EM Sensors).

I believe this would be a great option for the game, allowing currently semi-useless or very situational weapons like Plasma Carronades or HPWs to be effective.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on December 14, 2013, 11:53:46 AM
Some changes to overall combat that I would like to suggest.

Let the size of the ship play a role in how difficult they are to hit. Let's say that anything with a TCS with 100 has a 100% chance to be hit based on size. Anything smaller is then harder to hit and anything bigger easier to hit. This would effect both beam weapon and missiles. At least from a realistic point a view a smaller target is harder to hit than a larger target. Currently it is as easy to hit a smaller missile as it is to hit a huge battleship.
Targeting sensors would perhaps need to start at higher than 100% and reduce over range to accommodate this change. So, hitting large ships at short distances would be more or leas done at 100% while hitting a small fighter would need specially designed weapons and fire-controls. There could also be a third option of how small object your beam fire-control. Low resolution reduce range but increase the accuracy, higher resolution increase range but lower accuracy. Now you need controls against not only fast but also small or very small object such as fighters or missiles. All missiles should perhaps be treated as resolution 1 (TCS 1) for accuracy consideration, mostly for balance sake.

This would of course mean that combat targeting would need to be completely rebalanced, but I think that it would be a new and interesting factor in ship/missile design. Although missiles would need a careful investigation into how they should be implemented. Going over to a Newtonian type of missile would probably be the best thing to do as well as Newtonian type armour. But that is perhaps a little too much change... ;)

Anyway, this would make smaller ships and fighters much more dangerous against larger ships since hitting a large ship at distance will be much easier than hitting a fighter at large distances. So a small corvette with a spinal mounted laser will be very dangerous, or fighters/FAC armed with a particle cannon.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: alex_brunius on December 14, 2013, 02:47:13 PM
Should all ground units automatically be lost when a PDC Barracks is destroyed?

I'm thinking it surely should be easier to evacuate a PDC which has neither fallen nor been compleatly destroyed on a planet compared to evacuating a spaceship where we do get crew rescue pods.

Edit: And regardless of if they should, perhaps the message should report a bit more casualties?:

(http://i.imgur.com/thJ2489.png)
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Sematary on December 18, 2013, 02:58:24 AM
Kinetic weapons

For fun I figured out the joules in a kinetic strike on my first gen missiles in the game I am playing in the fiction section, which are 4 msp and go 30,000 km/s. I got a large number and I checked it against the Tzar Bomba, the largest nuclear device that humans have ever set off, and the W88, the main warhead in the US at present. This strike is ~1.7 times the size of the Tzar Bomba and ~200 times the size of the W88.

So saying that 1 warhead, which is what the ICBM has, is equal to the Tzar Bomba then we get kinetic missiles that do damage comparable to missiles with warheads. Practical purposes would be both cost effective and it would give a viable option for lower missile tech. To get the "warhead" size for such a device would be ((((speed*1000)^2)(msp*227))/2)^(1/15)/240. I don't know how hard it would be to code in the putting the speed and the msp into the equation but past that I shouldn't think putting it into warhead size would be that hard.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Narmio on December 18, 2013, 12:54:40 PM
Kinetic weapons

For fun I figured out the joules in a kinetic strike on my first gen missiles in the game I am playing in the fiction section, which are 4 msp and go 30,000 km/s. I got a large number and I checked it against the Tzar Bomba, the largest nuclear device that humans have ever set off, and the W88, the main warhead in the US at present. This strike is ~1.7 times the size of the Tzar Bomba and ~200 times the size of the W88.

So saying that 1 warhead, which is what the ICBM has, is equal to the Tzar Bomba then we get kinetic missiles that do damage comparable to missiles with warheads. Practical purposes would be both cost effective and it would give a viable option for lower missile tech. To get the "warhead" size for such a device would be ((((speed*1000)^2)(msp*227))/2)^(1/15)/240. I don't know how hard it would be to code in the putting the speed and the msp into the equation but past that I shouldn't think putting it into warhead size would be that hard.
This is one of those "laws of realistic sci-fi" problems.  Any spaceship fast enough to be interesting is an unparalleled weapon of mass destruction by its kinetic energy alone.  The truth is that a mid-game 20,000km/s fighter would probably cause a crater the size of Texas, kicking off a dinosaur-esque mass extinction event. If you stick to realistic models of motion and include technology powerful enough to travel between planets then you get a situation where you don't need warheads ever, you just accelerate towards your opponent and toss a bag of relativistic crowbars out the window at a distance of a few light seconds.

If you don't want combat to look like that you need to fudge the numbers by a few orders of magnitude.  I think it's most consistent to assume that Trans-newtonian movement does not actually involve acceleration in what we think of as the three dimensions of space, but instead moving the ship in some "other" space which obeys different rules. It's thus reactionless, inertialess and as long as you don't think too hard, flawless. :)
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Erik Luken on December 18, 2013, 01:45:25 PM
In replying to Dulkan's post, I had this thought... Allow for a hard cap on the number of NPRs that can be spawned. Once that limit is reached, no more NPRs will be spawned at all. This would allow for a decrease in the slowdowns that occur.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Steve Walmsley on December 18, 2013, 02:20:20 PM
Now that multi-faction starts with NPR are viable, there's only one thing left that would make me very, very happy (almost like a Christmas gift!)

Making conventional NPRs work.

By that I mean, they would research TN elements and then gradually start researching all the prerequisite techs for weapons, wormhole hopping etc., build their first ships, start colonising space...  Is this too much work? They already seem to be partly working (for example, they do convert conventional industry to normal factories) but it seems the AI is confused by the missing prerequisite techs.

The major problem is that there are a lot of basic TN techs and most things you build or design requires one or more of them. For a TN start they are almost all available so no problem. For a conventional start I would either have to set up checks for the techs every time an NPR considered designing a ship, constructing an installation, etc, or create a series of flags for all the various ships, installations etc and check/set those flags every time a new tech was researched. It's possible, it's just a lot of work. I will get to it one day :)

Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Steve Walmsley on December 18, 2013, 02:23:26 PM
I would like to suggest that certain actions take time that are currently done instantly now.  As these actions can be done manually and in that sense take no time it could be argued that it is odd to have them take time when done in a order but the reality is they do take time when done manually...they take the players time.

I'd suggest that refueling takes a time rated by the amount transfered 100 m3/h might be a starting point plus a fixed time to couple and decouple.  If any Navy people are about they probably know as a quick google didn't reveal a rate that I could find.

Remunitioning a ship with missiles probably should be a fixed couple/decouple time and then 5-10 min per missile space point to move it from one ship to the other.

Spares could be moved at a rate of 5 min per MSP transfered plus the fixed couple/decouple time.

The couple/decouple time isn't exactly that the two ships lock airlocks but mainly the time that is required to get close to each other and open airlock doors and exchange all the standard transfer protocols list and everything else involved in such transfers.

This would be another case where logistics skill could be used to reduce the times.

These are on my list. I would have some sort of fuel transfer tech etc. so that dedicated tankers would have a much faster transfer rate. Same for ordnance reloads, etc. Just need to generate the enthusiasm to dive in when I get some spare time :)

Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: alex_brunius on December 18, 2013, 04:58:27 PM
The major problem is that there are a lot of basic TN techs and most things you build or design requires one or more of them. For a TN start they are almost all available so no problem. For a conventional start I would either have to set up checks for the techs every time an NPR considered designing a ship, constructing an installation, etc, or create a series of flags for all the various ships, installations etc and check/set those flags every time a new tech was researched. It's possible, it's just a lot of work. I will get to it one day :)

Wouldn't it be a bit easier to have a solution where you just give them one or a few long list with these "basic" techs and have them postpone all ship design and ship building? Still allow the basics like upgrade conventional industries (which usually takes a few decades anyways), or do other conventional start things until they have the basic research for most ship design figured out so ordinary AI can be used.

Basically either just use a single flag to say "ding" now I'm ready with all the basics, or perhaps have two flags one for civilian and one for military ships.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Steve Walmsley on December 19, 2013, 04:35:14 AM
Wouldn't it be a bit easier to have a solution where you just give them one or a few long list with these "basic" techs and have them postpone all ship design and ship building? Still allow the basics like upgrade conventional industries (which usually takes a few decades anyways), or do other conventional start things until they have the basic research for most ship design figured out so ordinary AI can be used.

Basically either just use a single flag to say "ding" now I'm ready with all the basics, or perhaps have two flags one for civilian and one for military ships.

That's possible but it would put them at a huge disadvantage. For example, you can build survey ships or freighters a lot sooner than you can build a warship.

Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: alex_brunius on December 19, 2013, 06:39:35 AM
That's possible but it would put them at a huge disadvantage. For example, you can build survey ships or freighters a lot sooner than you can build a warship.

Yes I realized that as well and thats the reason it might make sense to split civilian (geo survey and freighters) and military into two separate lists where they complete and are allowed to build most civilian ships first.

Perhaps a re balance of how expensive some of the first unlocking techs are is also appropriate here to speed up their ability to complete the list.

My main point was that this would put the AI in a much better situation compared to currently regardless of if there are some inefficiencies ;D
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Narmio on December 19, 2013, 08:36:33 AM
My main point was that this would put the AI in a much better situation compared to currently regardless of if there are some inefficiencies ;D
Would it be possible to have several phases of development, essentially checkpoints on one long research queue? You could have a "civilian shipbuilding" and a "military shipbuilding" phase, or you could go somewhat more complicated and have "explore" (survey ships only), "expand/exploit" (colony ships, gate construction and freighters) and finally "exterminate" (military construction) once they reach the end of the starting research queue and transition the standard NPR AI.

It might also be a good time to implement PDCs for NPRs, so they could build primitive defences during phases 1/2. They wouldn't be able to put up a serious fight without much tech, but it would be fun to shoot down a few hundred desperately launched ICBM-equivalents before subjugating a planet.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: markus on December 20, 2013, 09:01:12 AM
That's possible but it would put them at a huge disadvantage. For example, you can build survey ships or freighters a lot sooner than you can build a warship.

Sure, but presently they are at an even huger disadvantage, right? Even if they take 20 years to research the prerequsite techs, it's still better than the current situation when they do nothing ever.

Alex's solution actually sounds like a nice stopgap measure.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: waresky on December 23, 2013, 07:58:43 AM
1 years ago the Game r fast...

Now with 2 only NPR around, zero Drone, Zero precursors No Swarm..the Game was ...bad.

i know another word for descritp the REAL annoying time waste to waitn 1 turn..

am play from BEGINING in this State..

Srry Steve : again to slowing game, another step to..Stop Aurora forever.

good job, but not for my (2 cents) opinion.

Really srry..
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Demonides on December 24, 2013, 07:57:33 AM
My suggestion, adding the "always on top" for windows

Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Erik Luken on December 24, 2013, 08:19:28 AM
My suggestion, adding the "always on top" for windows

There definitely is not enough screen real estate for that, unless you are running dual/triple monitors. Economics, events, and system/galactic map takes up a lot of space.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Demonides on December 24, 2013, 02:13:40 PM
then adding the termination of turns for the event log
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Erik Luken on December 24, 2013, 02:28:33 PM
then adding the termination of turns for the event log

The date/time of the event isn't enough? Or am I missing what you mean?
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Demonides on December 24, 2013, 02:33:00 PM
I play in one monitor and every time when i click to end turn event log hidde to main window.  Is it possible to block that did not disappear.  Sorry for my english  :-[
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: waresky on December 24, 2013, 02:59:47 PM
When ive buy a second Monitor...Aurora Life speed up at the top.

2 monitors r perfect for Aurora. All changes. Better
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Erik Luken on December 24, 2013, 03:44:42 PM
I play in one monitor and every time when i click to end turn event log hidde to main window.  Is it possible to block that did not disappear.  Sorry for my english  :-[

It should still be on the task bar. Or you can use Alt-F3 (I think) to display it again.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: joeclark77 on December 29, 2013, 04:45:27 PM
Suggestion: a queue for ground forces training, so we don't have to micromanage it.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Bgreman on December 29, 2013, 09:00:36 PM
Or you can use Alt-F3 (I think) to display it again.

CTRL+F3.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Erik Luken on December 31, 2013, 12:34:36 PM
I'm at work, and don't have Aurora installed on the work machine, and there is no pic on the wiki.

But... On the system screen (F9), when renaming a system can we have it either be text box as current, or randomly select from a theme?
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: jRides on January 04, 2014, 03:07:36 PM
Increase the Political Bonus effect with certain government types, like for Tyranny its doubled for example.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Theodidactus on January 20, 2014, 09:11:31 AM
when you start a new campaign, every officer is 21. I feel like the head of the children's crusade. Any way to stagger their ages.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: alex_brunius on January 20, 2014, 11:56:36 AM
when you start a new campaign, every officer is 21. I feel like the head of the children's crusade. Any way to stagger their ages.

Manually being able to edit all the leader properties and bonuses using SM mode would be a god-sent for my RP campaigns! :)
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Gidoran on January 22, 2014, 06:30:05 PM
when you start a new campaign, every officer is 21. I feel like the head of the children's crusade. Any way to stagger their ages.

Could have it set up at the start of a new campaign where if an officer is generated at a rank greater than one, it has a range applied to its age in terms of bonus years. So an O2 would be 21+(1 to 4) years of age, so on so forth. I know in Java it's relatively simple to do random number generation for stuff like this, but I have no clue what the specifics would be for Aurora. Just a thought on possible implementation.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: MarcAFK on January 22, 2014, 11:34:45 PM
I like it, that's a great idea and it reminds me of Darkland's system where character creation ages your character as you add more skill.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: swarm_sadist on January 25, 2014, 02:18:25 PM
A total for the resource would be a nice feature in the geological survey report.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Shuul on January 30, 2014, 06:39:09 AM
Hi, i found spinal mounts for lasers a nice additon in 6. 30.  But can you please make also spinal mounts for Particel beams as well, this does makes sense and it would increase veriety of weapones used (lets face it, laser are the most popular).
Itll be cool that with advanced spinal mount PB will reach maximum firing distance for beam weapons.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Zincat on January 30, 2014, 07:27:10 AM
A somewhat serious suggestion. Can we have some planet destroying weapons? You know, like the Death Star's superlaser :p

I'm not asking them to be combat worthy, perhaps even just plain useless or impractical. Like, I don't know, something needing 80000 tons of space, short ranged, and using 5000 energy. Something that would truly require a stupid amount of resources to build, and that would be worthless in combat and so brought in only after you completely smash the oppositions.

The reason for this suggestion is that I want some ways to RP the complete annihilation of an enemy NPR. I find that being forced to conquer them all is NO fun at all. Surely I should be able to kill the evil, nasty, enraged aliens who never wanted to talk with me right? Why MUST I be forced to conquer them?
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: MarcAFK on January 30, 2014, 07:42:31 AM
Blanketing their homeworld with radioactive dust isn't enough for you?
Build a 20 million ton terraformer and suck all the air out of their world and replace it with flourine if you want.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Zincat on January 30, 2014, 08:44:38 AM
Blanketing their homeworld with radioactive dust isn't enough for you?

I have never conquered an enemy colony myself, but I did read that ground troops was the only reliable way to handle an enemy worlds. if a few thousands missile also works, that's fine :P

Build a 20 million ton terraformer and suck all the air out of their world and replace it with flourine if you want.

The aliens can build infrastructure.....
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Hydrofoil on January 30, 2014, 12:55:58 PM
Might i suggest some work be put into compensating for Game slowdown. Such as trying to implement some functions that use OO language modules that allow for multi threading? VB as i learnt it was only a semi OO language but ive read that it can be used in conjunction with OO Languages or vice verse it helps with dealing with legacy systems built before the likes of Java and C++ became popular.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Charlie Beeler on January 30, 2014, 01:42:50 PM
Might i suggest some work be put into compensating for Game slowdown. Such as trying to implement some functions that use OO language modules that allow for multi threading? VB as i learnt it was only a semi OO language but ive read that it can be used in conjunction with OO Languages or vice verse it helps with dealing with legacy systems built before the likes of Java and C++ became popular.

A bit of searching would have revealed that this is in the works, just don't expect it anytime soon.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: swarm_sadist on January 30, 2014, 05:51:45 PM
A somewhat serious suggestion. Can we have some planet destroying weapons? You know, like the Death Star's superlaser :p
Perhaps more doable is having an asteroid destroying weapon, or have a certain spoiler race "eat" asteroids.

...For the purpose of speeding up the game of course.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Hydrofoil on January 31, 2014, 06:50:57 AM
A bit of searching would have revealed that this is in the works, just don't expect it anytime soon.

Aaah right thanks for the heads up ill admit I didnt really look, it was mostly and impulse thought.

Im not sure if this has been suggested but could we have some work done on the fleet order screen to make it easier to choose fleets and stuff instead of a drop down box? It quite unweildly when you have several explorer vessels all acting independently.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Steve Walmsley on January 31, 2014, 10:28:54 AM
Im not sure if this has been suggested but could we have some work done on the fleet order screen to make it easier to choose fleets and stuff instead of a drop down box? It quite unweildly when you have several explorer vessels all acting independently.

I might look at this at some point. Don't forget though you can right-click the fleet on the system map and select it that way. It's easier than opening the Fleet window and scrolling down the list.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: markus on January 31, 2014, 11:50:03 AM
I haven't played Aurora for quite some time and I can't check now, so this might have already been implemented but...

Can we get a "reload ordnance from task group" command? The same that we have for populations, only for task groups? When I played, unless I did something wrong, the only way to reload missiles was to do it manually from the ship details screen, which gets very tedious if you have many ships you need to reload.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Steve Walmsley on January 31, 2014, 11:55:00 AM
I haven't played Aurora for quite some time and I can't check now, so this might have already been implemented but...

Can we get a "reload ordnance from task group" command? The same that we have for populations, only for task groups? When I played, unless I did something wrong, the only way to reload missiles was to do it manually from the ship details screen, which gets very tedious if you have many ships you need to reload.

You can do that if you designate a class as a collier - the reload from fleet order will then appear (just as you get extra orders when a class is flagged as a tanker).
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Hydrofoil on February 01, 2014, 07:21:25 AM
I might look at this at some point. Don't forget though you can right-click the fleet on the system map and select it that way. It's easier than opening the Fleet window and scrolling down the list.

oooh I didnt know this thanks.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Sematary on February 01, 2014, 08:40:38 AM
The aliens can build infrastructure.....
Sure they can but how much infrastructure can they make in a day? Even at base terraforming tech of 0.001 a 20,000,000 terraformer will do 54.8 atmospheres a day. So within two days you could take Venus and terraform it to a vacuum.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Paul M on February 03, 2014, 04:08:19 AM
One thing I would not mind seeing is some changes to the balance for beam weapons and missile weapons.

1.  Reduce the size of beam weapon fire controls to 0.  Lets be frank here:  a dedicated graphics card based solution (the physics chip) can perform the calculations necessary.  There is no sensors associated with the system, it is simply a balistic targetting computer that tells the turret or barbette where to point based on the ships sensors information on the targets location.  It is in terms of tonnes of material a few kg.  The performance cost of it should scale with your settings but the system itself is zero space or at most 1 space.  The current situation where the fire control system occupies more volume then the weapon works against the beam weapons sigificantly.  It makes it hard to even justify them as a secondary weapon.

2.  Remove the x3 multiplier from missile fire controls.  This has nothing more than the effect of making it easy to use missiles at long ranges and completely negates the effect of ECM.  ECM is best countered by simply overbuilding your missile fire control rather than investing in ECCM.

3.  Increase the fuel requirement on missiles signficantly.  At the moment missiles contain virtually no fuel.  A modern missile is mostly fuel.

4.  Change the to hit formula for missiles, and remove the "missile speed"/"target speed" term.  In principle if the missile reaches the target is the only affect missile speed should have.  Once it is at the target it needs to detonate at a close range so the target is inside that fireball of the missile.  This is so far as I can see the missile agility.  That should be the only factor determining if the missile hits.  The formula as it stands makes sense for beam weapons but pretty much no sense for missiles, and I see no reason the same formula needs to apply to both beam weapons and missiles.  Speed would only effect the question of the detonation timer...so it would be the vector sum of the velocities of the missiles compared to the fireball range and timer accuracy.  Basically were the missiles moving in such a way that the timing of the detonation left the target outside the effective blast radius.  But in this case really fast missiles would suffer reduced chances to hit since the accuracy of the detonator would be more critical.

I understand that none of this will be popular.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Zincat on February 03, 2014, 04:25:03 AM
One thing I would not mind seeing is some changes to the balance for beam weapons and missile weapons.

1.  Reduce the size of beam weapon fire controls to 0.  Lets be frank here:  a dedicated graphics card based solution (the physics chip) can perform the calculations necessary.  There is no sensors associated with the system, it is simply a balistic targetting computer that tells the turret or barbette where to point based on the ships sensors information on the targets location.  It is in terms of tonnes of material a few kg.  The performance cost of it should scale with your settings but the system itself is zero space or at most 1 space.  The current situation where the fire control system occupies more volume then the weapon works against the beam weapons sigificantly.  It makes it hard to even justify them as a secondary weapon.

2.  Remove the x3 multiplier from missile fire controls.  This has nothing more than the effect of making it easy to use missiles at long ranges and completely negates the effect of ECM.  ECM is best countered by simply overbuilding your missile fire control rather than investing in ECCM.

3.  Increase the fuel requirement on missiles signficantly.  At the moment missiles contain virtually no fuel.  A modern missile is mostly fuel.

4.  Change the to hit formula for missiles, and remove the "missile speed"/"target speed" term.  In principle if the missile reaches the target is the only affect missile speed should have.  Once it is at the target it needs to detonate at a close range so the target is inside that fireball of the missile.  This is so far as I can see the missile agility.  That should be the only factor determining if the missile hits.  The formula as it stands makes sense for beam weapons but pretty much no sense for missiles, and I see no reason the same formula needs to apply to both beam weapons and missiles.  Speed would only effect the question of the detonation timer...so it would be the vector sum of the velocities of the missiles compared to the fireball range and timer accuracy.  Basically were the missiles moving in such a way that the timing of the detonation left the target outside the effective blast radius.  But in this case really fast missiles would suffer reduced chances to hit since the accuracy of the detonator would be more critical.

I understand that none of this will be popular.

A noob I may be, but I heartily support these suggestions. I'd love to see beam weapons more effective than they are now. Ok to missiles being the primary ranged weapon, but that does not mean they should be the "I win" button.

Steve, please, could we know why missiles are basically intended as the only viable weapon for a fleet? I am not necessarily saying they should be nerfed in range, but it's not nice that they are the only viable fleet weapon. Let's face it, why using beam weapons when I can just make 10 missile slinging ships, overwhelm point defense from 100m km away, and then reload and do it again?

The range advantage is more than enough already to compensate the fact one has to build missiles in my opinion. No reason have beam weapons nerfed so much as a whole.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Steve Walmsley on February 03, 2014, 05:07:40 AM
Steve, please, could we know why missiles are basically intended as the only viable weapon for a fleet? I am not necessarily saying they should be nerfed in range, but it's not nice that they are the only viable fleet weapon. Let's face it, why using beam weapons when I can just make 10 missile slinging ships, overwhelm point defense from 100m km away, and then reload and do it again?

I didn't start out with the idea that missiles would massively out-range beams. I just created a game with a set of base principles for the physics and that was the result. For example, in the real world if there was a war between two modern navies, how much of the combat would be missile-based and how much would be gun-based? How would that change when they ran out of missiles?

The missile has a huge range advantage because that is simply the reality of the situation. Beams are easy to avoid at any appreciable range just by dodging. Even if you didn't know you were being fired at then random course adjustments would suffice. I could build into the game long-range beams and random dodging but it would add complexity with no game-play benefit. Even with current tech we can send 'missiles' millions of kilometers so there is no justifiable reason to artificially restrict their range.

In a one-off battle, missiles are far more powerful. In an extended campaign, that isn't the case. Once you have played a few campaigns you will be building a significant number of beam ships because missiles have a lot of disadvantages as well. They can be intercepted, missiles have to be built using minerals/wealth and transported to the combat ships, once you run out your missile ship is just an expensive target, missile ships get taken apart in a close range jump point defence, missiles don't work in Nebulae, etc.

You can probably build a viable beam-only fleet. There is no way you could build a viable missile-only fleet.

Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Kaiser on February 03, 2014, 05:46:41 AM
Hi Steve
Thank you for your time spent on improving this monster game/simulator of whatever it is, all of us are impatiently waiting next 6.40.
I would again stress you the importance to have somehow, ground invasion by AI.
I know, maybe it's not in your plan and you focusing on other, but you could think something of specific and not so complicate as for instance, that AI makes invasion only for a certain kind of planet based on size, thermal signature, distance from its nearest base, I don't know what...
Adding just something of simple that simulate ground invasion would add a lot of fun and surprise, stressing in positive we poor aurora-maniacs ;)

Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Zincat on February 03, 2014, 06:04:46 AM
I didn't start out with the idea that missiles would massively out-range beams. I just created a game with a set of base principles for the physics and that was the result. For example, in the real world if there was a war between two modern navies, how much of the combat would be missile-based and how much would be gun-based? How would that change when they ran out of missiles?

The missile has a huge range advantage because that is simply the reality of the situation. Beams are easy to avoid at any appreciable range just by dodging. Even if you didn't know you were being fired at then random course adjustments would suffice. I could build into the game long-range beams and random dodging but it would add complexity with no game-play benefit. Even with current tech we can send 'missiles' millions of kilometers so there is no justifiable reason to artificially restrict their range.

In a one-off battle, missiles are far more powerful. In an extended campaign, that isn't the case. Once you have played a few campaigns you will be building a significant number of beam ships because missiles have a lot of disadvantages as well. They can be intercepted, missiles have to be built using minerals/wealth and transported to the combat ships, once you run out your missile ship is just an expensive target, missile ships get taken apart in a close range jump point defence, missiles don't work in Nebulae, etc.

You can probably build a viable beam-only fleet. There is no way you could build a viable missile-only fleet.

I understand your reasoning about realistic portray of the situation. Indeed my post was not about reducing the range of the missiles, but more about some unbalance that I perceive in the game. Like the missile fire control/beam fire control one. I would think it would be the contrary, that is, that missiles require bigger fire controls than beam weapons because it's harder to track a ship by missile considering you have to do it at extreme range. Unless a missile has its sensors, the tracking and necessary adjustments are done from the ship mounting the missile fire control tens of millions of km away. One would expect that to be harder than to track a close combat ship or fighter.

Also, it is true that under the current rules it's cheaper to oversize missile fire controls rather than invest in electronic warfare, since missile fire controls are so small anyway. In my opinion that's bad because you eliminate the usefulness of electronic warfare against a missile-wielding race.

I will admit though that I am a noob, and so I've never been in a nebula/never been engaged in a very long campaign. My observations are just from ship design trials.

P.S. I would also like to see ground invasions if possible, as kaiser suggested. I understand that you do not have much free time though, these suggestions are not meant to be complains. I just love this game and can hardly wait :)
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Steve Walmsley on February 03, 2014, 07:00:05 AM
Hi Steve
Thank you for your time spent on improving this monster game/simulator of whatever it is, all of us are impatiently waiting next 6.40.
I would again stress you the importance to have somehow, ground invasion by AI.
I know, maybe it's not in your plan and you focusing on other, but you could think something of specific and not so complicate as for instance, that AI makes invasion only for a certain kind of planet based on size, thermal signature, distance from its nearest base, I don't know what...
Adding just something of simple that simulate ground invasion would add a lot of fun and surprise, stressing in positive we poor aurora-maniacs ;)

I do like the idea of ground invasions by the AI and I think the AI players already design troop transports. I haven't got around to implementing any code for invasions but that is just due to a lack of time rather than a lack of interest on my part.

Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: MarcAFK on February 03, 2014, 07:25:54 AM
I'm not convinced there are any major balance issues with the missiles vs beam argument, but I would like to give my thoughts on Paul M's points;
1) Why are fire controls so large? At the ridiculously long ranges we're talking about for beam and ballistic weapons you not only need to determine where your target will be at the time your weapon will impact it, but also need to account for the light speed lag associated with attempting to view something so far away, now if we assume that transnewtonian physics allows objects to be tracked near instantaneously without any relativistic lag, perhaps the equipment necessary for such physics bending are rather cumbersome? As pointed out somewhere else discussing this subject, the angle necessary to miss an object at such ranges would at some point approach infinitely small. Perhaps the fire controls also aim the beam as it travels using gravitational lensing or something. Where as tracking a missile from such range I assume would use more active technology, you guess where the object is based on the ghost on your sensors but as the missile gets closer the error associated with your fire control gets lower because of the lower range.
I don't really agree that fire controls are too large compared to beam weapons as for fighters you can reduce their size and range or tracking speed, fighter sized ones already get a tracking speed bonus which helps immensely, but for larger craft the fire control gets even less important as you pile more weapons onto less fire controls.

2)I think the size of missile fire controls is about right as active sensors are rather unwieldly already, but I think Paul's right about ECM/ECCM being somewhat unbalanced, It's simply too easy to overbuild fire control range, perhaps ECM/ECCM should have a random chance involved with the effect it has on your fire control and also effect active sensors in the same way.
Perhaps a good balance would be that each Level of ECM adds a 70% failure rate to enemy fire control untill it reaches maybe 10%-20 it's designed range, equal matched ECM and ECCM reduces that to 1%, Varying levels of ECM and ECCM would either add or reduce the error rate, I haven't worked out a good equation for it, but the rate should be high when theres more ECM and low when theres more ECCM. The idea of error rate is that when the sensor is checked to see what's in range a roll is made against each contact found based on ECM/ECCM, if the roll fails the contact disappears, but the roll must be modified by range so that the effect diminishes significantly. The effect of this would be rather more interesting than our current system, basically ECM shielded fleets would be hidden from your sensors untill they've crept somewhat past your sensor range, and while they were still on the perimeter would alternately drop in or out of view, missiles would need to keep travelling towards the last known contact without actually having any active sensors otherwise it would disrupt the current system, but when the fire control requires the target the missile changes heading, If the target vanishes off the fire control or sensors for some significant time before being reaquired then significant fuel would be wasted as the missile attempts to change heading for it. Furthermore if the contact vanishes as a missile is about to close on it it would obviously miss and at this point active sensors would be needed for it to reaquire the contact. Finally if the fire control of the ship that fired the missile is destroyed then as the current system the missile would self destruct if it has no actives. I would add that nebulas and black holes should increase the base error rate.

3) Agree absolutely, pre version 6 had rather logical fuel useage( for missiles and fighters that is,
I think large ships seems about right)

4) I'm in agreement that the hit percentage being mostly based on speed might not be the best, if we assume that Aurora's missiles aren't kinetic since more speed and mass don't increase warhead size, then it's obvious that the missile never actually needs to hit it's target and probably explodes using an area of effect (Source: it's a nuclear warhead),  As Paul said if a target could actually dodge the explosion the current mechanic would make sense, I can't really find data for the explosion speed of Large nuclear weapons, but the Wikipedia page for project Orion mentions plasma velocities of 30,000 km/s, and since the energy of the explosion decreases as the fireball expands then I imagine you would need to be dead accurate in order to actually hit anything travelling at trans newtonian velocity. Furthermore this is pretty well represented by the fact that missile impacts punch distinct holes into armour which would require the detonation occuring close enough to the affected armour to send energy into the armour at a higher rate then that at which it can either absorb or reflect energy, going back to project orion it shows that under the right circumstances nuclear weapons won't destroy heavy armour as long as it's detonated far enough away from it.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: alex_brunius on February 03, 2014, 11:53:10 AM
3) Agree absolutely, pre version 6 had rather logical fuel useage

I also agree. It's actually related to all small engines even fighter/FAC ones.

You can comfortably build Aurora fighters with 50% of their weight being engines + max power mod but only 5% fuel and still get decent ranges.

A real fighter has around 25-45% internal fuel and adds drop tanks on top of that, and still count flight time in a matter of hours.

( more detail suggestion on engine size and efficiency revamp here: http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,5896.msg66852.html#msg66852 )
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Zincat on February 04, 2014, 10:44:21 AM
A (small I think) request which would make UI better. Could we have the increment time buttons and the autoturn on/off switch also on the Event Updates window?

I ask because I don't know others, but I usually spend most of my time when making turns with that windows open and only that. Everythign else I keep minimized. It would be very useful, at least for how I play...

And another small thing, for us that do transport teams to and from planets instead of teleporting them. Could we have pick up all teams/ drop all team options please? If I want to pick up 8 teams, say, from Mars and drop them to Venus, that's like 30 clicks? A "pick up all teams" and "drop all teams" addition would be MUCH welcome
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Bgreman on February 04, 2014, 02:50:18 PM
Beams are easy to avoid at any appreciable range just by dodging. Even if you didn't know you were being fired at then random course adjustments would suffice.

This is why I think beams should have the 5 light-second range limit lifted.  Just claim that, like so many other near-magical aspects of Aurora, beams generated by TNE-based emitters can have superluminal propagation speeds.  The wavefront propagates through the fluid dimensions or whatever.  Perhaps guiding such a beam requires more hardware than one might expect, explaining the BFC sizes.

The adherence to the speed of light in a game where ships behave the way they do and magic heating/cooling gases exist seems rather arbitrary.

Extreme ranges on beams should still be somewhat difficult to achieve, or balanced in some other fashion (make reactor use consume fuel when recharging capacitors perhaps?).
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Steve Walmsley on February 04, 2014, 05:30:13 PM
I really don't want to extend beam range range. Otherwise faster ship + long-range beam = game over. Aurora also owes a lot to Harpoon and the Honor Harrington novels, which have the same long-range missiles but devastating close-range weaponry.

I might consider modifying the size of beam fire controls though. I'll probably look at it over the weekend.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Zincat on February 04, 2014, 05:33:46 PM
I might consider modifying the size of beam fire controls though. I'll probably look at it over the weekend.

I really hope so :) It would help, especially, with hybrid ships, or putting some PD defense on more ship designs.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Five on February 04, 2014, 05:45:29 PM
I would suggest making it so that shields require reactors. As it is right now you only need reactors for beam weapons, so potentially you never need them. If it is needed to power the shields more ships will need them...plus, atleast to me, it seems like what would power them.

-Five
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Cripes Amighty on February 04, 2014, 08:04:07 PM
I would suggest making it so that shields require reactors. As it is right now you only need reactors for beam weapons, so potentially you never need them. If it is needed to power the shields more ships will need them...plus, atleast to me, it seems like what would power them.

-Five

I have thought the same thing as well. I understand the idea is to make sure that shields cannot run indefinitely, and thus their consumption of fuel. However, linking them to power plants would increase the use of power plants which is somewhat of a drawback since this increases the chance of a secondary power explosion whenever they are hit.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: MarcAFK on February 04, 2014, 11:08:38 PM
I've always thought shields should use power, and power plants should consume fuel, and sensors, life support etc should use power too,  that way ships couldn't stay fully fuelled in orbit of a planet indefinitely and would require some logistics in order to picket jump points, planets etc.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: alex_brunius on February 05, 2014, 05:34:00 AM
Keep in mind that suggestion around more systems using energy adds alot of complexity to take into account.

For example what happens if you have energy to only run your shields or your energy weapons? Do both get 50% of the required energy each, or is the other automatically turned off if you try to active one system? Imagine what consequences that would have if it's also linked to life support? :P
How do you manage all this for an entire fleet in a simple way? Are we forced to design a model with energy required to constantly run all systems even if we never are going to use shields and tractor beams at the same time? How do you balance all energy needs in a realistic way? Does shields consume more energy when they are recharging? How much more?
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: wilddog5 on February 05, 2014, 11:21:53 AM
one way for shields to work if they use power plants is for them to create temporary layers, like the armor layers and a missile pattern.

the number of layers created buy the shieled is a cube route of the shields strength

strength 25 missile 5 layers V strength 25 shield 3 layers (rounded) the first 3 layers are absorbed by the shields the rest the armor this simulates local shield penetration/ distortion acting in a similar fashion to shock damage
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Shipright on February 05, 2014, 02:31:52 PM
Keep in mind that suggestion around more systems using energy adds alot of complexity to take into account.

For example what happens if you have energy to only run your shields or your energy weapons? Do both get 50% of the required energy each, or is the other automatically turned off if you try to active one system? Imagine what consequences that would have if it's also linked to life support? :P
How do you manage all this for an entire fleet in a simple way? Are we forced to design a model with energy required to constantly run all systems even if we never are going to use shields and tractor beams at the same time? How do you balance all energy needs in a realistic way? Does shields consume more energy when they are recharging? How much more?

You could have an empire wide or class specific priority ranking for power, with life support being automatic #1.

More simply you could limit power usage to systems more likely to use a lot of it like sensors and shields and weapons. These are also components you have to choose to use.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Cripes Amighty on February 05, 2014, 11:48:08 PM
Keep in mind that suggestion around more systems using energy adds alot of complexity to take into account.

For example what happens if you have energy to only run your shields or your energy weapons? Do both get 50% of the required energy each, or is the other automatically turned off if you try to active one system? Imagine what consequences that would have if it's also linked to life support? :P
How do you manage all this for an entire fleet in a simple way? Are we forced to design a model with energy required to constantly run all systems even if we never are going to use shields and tractor beams at the same time? How do you balance all energy needs in a realistic way? Does shields consume more energy when they are recharging? How much more?

I see your point. But how does the system currently work if a power plant is destroyed? Does it equally distribute power across all energy weapons, or is one randomly chosen to not receive power in that 5 second interval? Couldn't this just be employed for the shields as well?

As of right now, all I was agreeing with was that power plants be used to charge shields, much like they would be used to charge energy weapons. That shouldn't add that much more complexity to the equation.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Sematary on February 06, 2014, 01:35:27 AM
Right now as I understand it, powerplants provide y amount of power and all the beam weapons require x amount of power. If x is less than or equal to y than no problem, if x is greater than y all systems are effected equally.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Paul M on February 06, 2014, 02:26:43 AM
An economic suggestion.

One of the issues to a conventional start is that the intial few years (or decades more accurately) has you spending very little money.  Thus you accumulate a nest egg of fairly substantial proportions.

Governments unfortunatly (or not) don't work like this.  If you have money it is spent.  I'd suggest that the maximum yearly surplus be capped at 10% of your current yearly income.  Monthly surpluses to be capped at 10% of your income.

So a empire with a monthly income of 1000 could have a surplus no higher than +100, and could over a year accumulate a net positve balance of no more than 1200.  This just reflects the fact that governments will transfer money to another project, increase social funding or decrease tax rates to essentially balance their books.  Unless they are attempting to pay down a debt they aren't any more keen on a surplus than a deficiet.  And weath generated greater than 10% is just lost though the value remains for other purposes.  So an empire with a monthly income of 24 000 and expenses of 12 000 would gain no more than +240 but would still be considered to have an income per month of 24 000 or per year of 288 000.

This should apply only to players though to make programing the NPR easier.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on February 06, 2014, 06:09:23 AM
An economic suggestion.

One of the issues to a conventional start is that the intial few years (or decades more accurately) has you spending very little money.  Thus you accumulate a nest egg of fairly substantial proportions.

Governments unfortunatly (or not) don't work like this.  If you have money it is spent.  I'd suggest that the maximum yearly surplus be capped at 10% of your current yearly income.  Monthly surpluses to be capped at 10% of your income.

So a empire with a monthly income of 1000 could have a surplus no higher than +100, and could over a year accumulate a net positve balance of no more than 1200.  This just reflects the fact that governments will transfer money to another project, increase social funding or decrease tax rates to essentially balance their books.  Unless they are attempting to pay down a debt they aren't any more keen on a surplus than a deficiet.  And weath generated greater than 10% is just lost though the value remains for other purposes.  So an empire with a monthly income of 24 000 and expenses of 12 000 would gain no more than +240 but would still be considered to have an income per month of 24 000 or per year of 288 000.

This should apply only to players though to make programing the NPR easier.

I like this idea... although the surplus could be automatically transferred into a small bonus on production/research for the following year instead of just loosing the wealth. The bonus should not be very large just as small benefit for having a good economy going.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on February 06, 2014, 06:19:43 AM
One idea or thing that I thought about is the use of researchers and the number of laboratories they can use per administration level. Especially when you do conventional starts the administration level are pretty much never a problem. By the time you have enough laboratories to give them their maximum you have a vast overflow of scientists anyway so it never becomes a real problem.

Add a new research project called science administration or something like that. Each level will let you place one laboratory for each administration level of their researcher. In a conventional start you would only be able to give them one laboratory per level, this would encourage some slightly more spread out research and make your high administration scientists more important.

The "Science Administration" project should be pretty expensive, like first level free and second level would be 8000RP then double for every level up to level five...

Lv1 = 1 lab/admin level = Free
Lv2 = 2 labs/admin level = 8000RP
Lv3 = 3 labs/admin level = 16000RP
Lv4 = 4 labs/admin level = 32000RP
Lv5 = 5 labs/admin level = 64000RP

I have suggested some mitigating factor for research to curb the snowball effect of research versus a growing empire, especially on production/research and wealth increasing techs. I hope you take a look at that in the near future. This would give smaller (perhaps even NPRs) more of a realistic chance to stay competitive and would also be more realistic.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: chrislocke2000 on February 06, 2014, 06:38:12 AM
I'd agree with the earlier points on beam and missile fire controls.

Some smaller fire controls would be a good rebalance v missiles without a massive lurch away from current game balance which I really like.

Also am I right in thinking that fire control tracking tech is one below the equivalent turret tracking tech? If that is the case it would make sense to me to have those matched.

I'd also agree that large MFCs largely negate the benefits of ECM so another look at that would be good.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on February 06, 2014, 07:07:05 AM
On the subject of beam weapons, missiles and fire-controls.

I would perhaps agree that beam fire-controls could perhaps be reduced in size somewhat, that would perhaps be beneficial to to the balance. Although not cheaper, but smaller.

One thing that somehow bothers me is how we calculate the probability of hitting something with beam-weapons. One thing that is an apparent issue for beam weapons is range. In my opinion the size of the object MUST be as important as the range. An object that is half the size of another object is pretty much the same thing as hitting the larger object at twice the distance. This is a two dimensional thing and has more or less nothing to do with speed. This would obviously also make fighters/FAC more of a valid platform for beam combat, which could be a welcome change for those that like to use fighters for that. Realy large ships should be pretty much sitting ducks for close range beam weapons.

My suggestion would be that you hit ships at 5000t (100TC) at 100% accuracy and you then just add % based chance increase to hit based on that.

Missiles should of course be handled with special types of fire-controls built for that purpose only. These should be expensive but smaller than regular fire-controls with much less range. I don't think we should be able to shoot down missiles at the same distances we can shoot down enemy ships. Area-defence weapons should work differently ans distances should be reduced and we should not have to choose between Final-fire or Area-fire for our PD weapons. They should automatically fire at final-fire and/or area-fire. Only allow weapons that can fire every 5-sec and be turreted to be assigned to PD fire-controls, thus limiting those weapons to PD duty. It would also lift the restriction of differentiate between final-fire and are-fire PD.

Let the velocity of Gauss-weapons effect their accuracy instead of their range. They should have effective ranges below 10000km anyway, lasers should be the weapon of choice to provide are-fire protection. Make area-fire lasers actually more accurate and effective then final-fire gauss cannons so you will need both. If are-fire laser weapons were more accurate you would need to separate your laser escort to provide that protection, but keeping a few CIWS or gauss turrets would still be useful.

Add some small collateral damage on missile impact on ships in the same space. Such as a small chance for each impact to damage another ship in the are if only a small portion of the damage. Just make this a random chance and a random amount of damage. This would also serve to make a choice of close escorts and/or several battle groups. Some mechanic for ships that are within close distance from each other (say 50000km) to synchronise their attacks as a compensation.

If you would consider any of these changes it would perhaps be good with a formation/task-group editor and be able to divide a task-group into squadrons.

Ok, enough stupid ideas from me for today... ;)
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: sloanjh on February 06, 2014, 08:09:39 AM
An object that is half the size of another object is pretty much the same thing as hitting the larger object at twice the distance. This is a two dimensional thing and has more or less nothing to do with speed. This would obviously also make fighters/FAC more of a valid platform for beam combat, which could be a welcome change for those that like to use fighters for that. Realy large ships should be pretty much sitting ducks for close range beam weapons.

My first reaction was "I really like this idea (bigger = easier to hit)".

My second thought was "but then P(hit) should go down like the square of the range too (because a target twice as far away occludes twice as much angle).  So this leads to multiplying the raw P(hit) by (size/range)^N, where N is 2 in real life but probably 1 in Aurora (Aurora usually substitutes linear drop-off for high-powers).  This in turn would lead to, for a particular size target, a magic range at which P(hit) becomes >100%, i.e. a sure thing.  In other words, from a game mechanics point of view, I think that range and size would become the dominant factors in beam fire control.  The problem with this is anti-missile fire - thinking this way a beam on final defensive fire should always hit (due to range being zero).

I think/vaguely recall that Steve might have already gone through this thought process and decided to apply technobabble to avoid the issue because of the major impact on gameplay.

John
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on February 06, 2014, 09:38:54 AM
My first reaction was "I really like this idea (bigger = easier to hit)".

My second thought was "but then P(hit) should go down like the square of the range too (because a target twice as far away occludes twice as much angle).  So this leads to multiplying the raw P(hit) by (size/range)^N, where N is 2 in real life but probably 1 in Aurora (Aurora usually substitutes linear drop-off for high-powers).  This in turn would lead to, for a particular size target, a magic range at which P(hit) becomes >100%, i.e. a sure thing.  In other words, from a game mechanics point of view, I think that range and size would become the dominant factors in beam fire control.  The problem with this is anti-missile fire - thinking this way a beam on final defensive fire should always hit (due to range being zero).

I think/vaguely recall that Steve might have already gone through this thought process and decided to apply technobabble to avoid the issue because of the major impact on gameplay.

John

I don't think that mixing too much real geometry would be the way to go, just using some more linear formula should suffice I think for game balance. I don't see a problem with hitting a target at a certain range/size would be 100%. Big ships should be pretty easy to hit at low ranges. And as I said both fighters and FAC would be much more lucrative in the beam role as well. Currently, both fighters and FAC usually have too weak armour to be effective in that role. At least in a game where you are up against something else than scripted ship designs. It would also give a whole new meaning to weapons such as Particle Beams and spinal mounted lasers. These weapons would be quite useless against smaller ships but very effective against larger ships at long range.

For missiles you would need a dedicated FC for that purpose, otherwise it would be too hard to engage and destroy them. Also, final fire against missiles is calculated at a distance of 10000km in the current model during final-fire. Using a standard fire-control and the hitting a size 6 (or below) missile would be pretty impossible if you did not use a different type of dedicated PDFC.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: crys on February 08, 2014, 05:25:49 PM

it only shows how many month have passed - but youre ships can have lots and lots of different deployment times.
so the value is kind of "useless"

1. i think it would be much better to make it like the fuel status: like 30/30 10/30 and maybe even negative -10/30 for deployment times.

2. military engines seem to get very expencive quickly - the maintainence supplays needed for repairs are a huge issue to carry with.
this is true for large 50% civ engines on military vessels too.
it would be nice to reduce the failture rate, reduce repair costs or introduce something like partial failtures which require less for repairs.

3. about research economics tab. it feels kind of silly to check for queued research projects over and over again.
especially if you have lots of projects running, and you would need to scroll in both research lists to find out.(current research projects/research queue)
couldnt it be indicated in the "current research project list", that another project is queued?
i would suggest adding a * to one of the columns, or change the font color/bold/cursive.

4. again research, it would be nice if you could order the list for finishing times. then you dont need to search for queueing or new stuff comming up.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Duzzit on February 08, 2014, 08:09:43 PM
In regards to the new cease-fire timer that allows for multiple nations to start in the same system in 6.4, will there be an ability to say that the nations start as allies, enemies who signed a temporary peace deal(so a lot of -diplomacy), or trading partners?
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on February 11, 2014, 05:22:09 PM
One thing that I would like to have in the game would be to be able to use conventional warhead on missiles that are only useful for bombarding planets. That way I can avoid polluting the planet with precision bombardment from space.

Or some other specific weapon that I can bombard a planet with, perhaps some form of kinetic kill bombardment weapon, or a combination of both of these weapons.

I don't have all that much experience with bombarding planets and don't remember how effective a heavy laser would be in let's say Earths atmosphere.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: MarcAFK on February 11, 2014, 10:58:06 PM
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: ZimRathbone on February 12, 2014, 03:28:38 PM
One thing that I would like to have in the game would be to be able to use conventional warhead on missiles that are only useful for bombarding planets. That way I can avoid polluting the planet with precision bombardment from space.

Or some other specific weapon that I can bombard a planet with, perhaps some form of kinetic kill bombardment weapon, or a combination of both of these weapons.

I don't have all that much experience with bombarding planets and don't remember how effective a heavy laser would be in let's say Earths atmosphere.

One of the early design decisions on Aurora was to make Planetary Bombardment expensive in terms of the environmental effects.  This was due (in part)  to the old Starfire strategy of GFFP (Genocide For Fun and Profit) where it became a standard to wipe out indigenous populations on usable worlds, and a month later drop small populations that were completely functional and productive.  The current situation is intended to ensure that this is not the optimum strategy in all cases, hence I doubt that any "clean" bombardment tech will be introduced. in other words, its a game balance issue not a reality issue.   :)
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on February 13, 2014, 03:13:47 AM
One of the early design decisions on Aurora was to make Planetary Bombardment expensive in terms of the environmental effects.  This was due (in part)  to the old Starfire strategy of GFFP (Genocide For Fun and Profit) where it became a standard to wipe out indigenous populations on usable worlds, and a month later drop small populations that were completely functional and productive.  The current situation is intended to ensure that this is not the optimum strategy in all cases, hence I doubt that any "clean" bombardment tech will be introduced. in other words, its a game balance issue not a reality issue.   :)

Yes, I remember something to that effect... but what I'm after are more a way to support ground military operations and/or perform strategical bombardment. I don't see how you could ever destroy an entire population with conventional warheads anyway. They should only be usable against enemy military units in support of your own military units or damage infrastructure. Or you could use them to temporarily lower enemy production efficiency and population morale. Some population decline could occur but it should be very small, just a small percentage so you can never even come close to destroying the population. Sort of like industrial and terror bombardment in WWII. Just make each use of the module cost some ship supplies or something as well so you can't bomb indefinitely.

In my opinion this could just be a conventional bombardment module, each module would increase the combat efficiency of one of your units attack/defence values or terrorise the population/production.

I just want to have the possibility of using orbital bombardment artillery ships, just because it would be cool and for RP reasons. It could also increase the collateral damage on infrastructure as a downside.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Paul M on February 13, 2014, 04:15:55 AM
It should be possible to allow rail guns and lasers to support ground operations.  The requirement would be a unit on the ground (spotting) and this use of orbital support would give some bonus to the units fighting on the ground.  Basically you need to force the enemy into an engagement otherwise it is a bit like random artillery bombardment or for that matter random ariel bombing in accomplishing pretty much nothing.

I'm not sure what you want to give for bonuses and so on but it would not invalidate the concept and frankly there is no real reason lasers can't be fired through atmosphere's you just need to tune them properly, since they are pulsed anyway after a few pulses they have opened a "hole" in the atmosphere.  But regareless rail guns would be highly useful as orbital fire support.

So a 10 cm rail gun gives +1% per rail gun to the ground units combat values with a maximum of +25% attack and +50% defence or what have you.  Scale it upwards with the rail gun size.

This avoids invalidating ground combat but allows for orbital support.  Conventional missiles yeah but really with missiles sizes...not sure how this would work.  The key point again would be requiring "boots on the ground" which would again keep the game balance reason valid.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: alex_brunius on February 13, 2014, 06:31:18 AM
It should be possible to allow rail guns and lasers to support ground operations.  The requirement would be a unit on the ground (spotting) and this use of orbital support would give some bonus to the units fighting on the ground.  Basically you need to force the enemy into an engagement otherwise it is a bit like random artillery bombardment or for that matter random ariel bombing in accomplishing pretty much nothing.

I'm not sure what you want to give for bonuses and so on but it would not invalidate the concept and frankly there is no real reason lasers can't be fired through atmosphere's you just need to tune them properly, since they are pulsed anyway after a few pulses they have opened a "hole" in the atmosphere.  But regareless rail guns would be highly useful as orbital fire support.

So a 10 cm rail gun gives +1% per rail gun to the ground units combat values with a maximum of +25% attack and +50% defence or what have you.  Scale it upwards with the rail gun size.

This avoids invalidating ground combat but allows for orbital support.  Conventional missiles yeah but really with missiles sizes...not sure how this would work.  The key point again would be requiring "boots on the ground" which would again keep the game balance reason valid.

I Agree, allow support but have it work as a modifier to ground units instead off annihilating the enemy units. Another way to do it is the Civ approach (Airplanes can damage ground units to XX% but not below)

What I think would be cool is to be able to design fighters to work in the atmosphere in this ground support role.
Realistically speaking it would be much more effective to have close air support fighters compared to bigger ships in orbit.

Perhaps something along the lines of an extra "aerodynamic/engine" adaptation module that you attach on fighters to allow them to effectively support ground combat. That does however raise the question if not ground units should be able to fire back and knock out or damage a few of them.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: wilddog5 on February 16, 2014, 05:33:07 AM
KEYBOARD SHORTCUTS!!!!

sorry  :-[ I'm in the middle of converting 100+ lo tec units into cardres and a shortcut would be so usefull not only in this case but almost all of the menus/windows could benefit from this, from a UI perspective.

thank you
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Kaiser on February 23, 2014, 06:11:41 AM
Hi Steve,

I had put this post in the wrong topic.

Is it possible to have a record of ships destroyed? Something like with name of the ship, class, info about the weapon which destroyed it, date of destruction and position.
This record should be both for human player and AI (for AI only for known ships destroyed).
Maybe it would be not so useful tool, but it would be nice read some statistic info, during boring part of the game  ;)
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: markus on February 25, 2014, 03:37:09 AM
Steve, I have a suggestion for when you are revamping diplomacy:

Replace the cumulative diplomatic points by static modifiers.

So e.g. a diplomatic team of 150 total skill would not add 150 points per year, with the value soon rising to hundreds and thousands. Instead it would set your relations to static "150". You can have modifiers on top of that, like "+50 for 5 years of peace" "-30 for xenophobia" "-10 for ships in their home system" "-50 for the player holding a system that the NPR wants".... for a total of 120.

This gives you a much less linear value, and you can then set triggers for war, peace, trade etc. specific points. It also allows you to take various effects (bonuses and penalties) into account, thus enabling much richer diplomacy, and the diplomatic value of a team suddenly makes a lot of difference! As things are now, the skill of the team is basically pointless - you will eventually always have enough points, you just need to wait longer with a less skilled team. And the points are guaranteed to rise and rise... which is a bit boring.

What I'm describing has been used to great effect in strategic games by Paradox, see e.g. this screenshot:
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: alex_brunius on February 25, 2014, 03:44:13 AM

What I'm describing has been used to great effect in strategic games by Paradox, see e.g. this screenshot:

That is a great suggestion, especially if it's possible to explain as clearly as that Paradox interface does.

Love those, amazing how complex/detailed diplomacy that can be achieved and explained by so simple means, and very easy for them to expand by adding/tweaking modifiers.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on February 25, 2014, 03:29:54 PM
I would agree, a diplomacy and relationship system like that in games such as Europa Universals would be great in this game. I would even like to extend them to your own colonies for some inter galactic political arena and role-play.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: boggo2300 on February 27, 2014, 02:43:32 PM
I'd like it if shipnames could be cast in sets for classes so that newly constructed ships will draw names from the list for that class (would make things much simpler than at the moment when I have to rename 90%+ of the ships to fit into the class naming conventions I use.

for example have the shipnames.txt with;
[County]Devonshire,Hampshire,Kent

with County being the classname, so whenever you build a ship flagged as County class, it uses the next name from the list (ie if it's the third one it'll become Kent)

Matt
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Bgreman on February 27, 2014, 03:04:10 PM
I'd like it if shipnames could be cast in sets for classes so that newly constructed ships will draw names from the list for that class (would make things much simpler than at the moment when I have to rename 90%+ of the ships to fit into the class naming conventions I use.

for example have the shipnames.txt with;
[County]Devonshire,Hampshire,Kent

with County being the classname, so whenever you build a ship flagged as County class, it uses the next name from the list (ie if it's the third one it'll become Kent)

Matt

You can do this already.  In the Class Design screen, on the DAC / Rank / Info tab, there is a Name Type dropdown.  You can choose a name theme there and then, when you select a class to build on the Shipyards tab, the next name from the set will automatically be selected for the next ship name.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: OkieMurse on February 27, 2014, 08:28:14 PM
I would really like additional places to control time.  Especially on the event window as this is really the only window I'm paying any attention to while time is passing and it would be nice to quickly restart autoturns when the interrupt is inconsequential.  Either that or a standalone very slim profile time control that I can put next to the event window or whatever other window I'm watching while autoturns are chugging away.  I attached 2 poorly edited paint examples made from cut and pasting resources already in game somewhere.

I did not have to increase the size of the event window, you just lose view of 3-4 events up top (which is fairly inconsequential with a scroll bar).

Not having this is really the only reason I have to play dual-monitor.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: alex_brunius on February 28, 2014, 03:47:13 AM
I would really like additional places to control time.  Especially on the event window as this is really the only window I'm paying any attention to while time is passing and it would be nice to quickly restart autoturns when the interrupt is inconsequential.  Either that or a standalone very slim profile time control that I can put next to the event window or whatever other window I'm watching while autoturns are chugging away.  I attached 2 poorly edited paint examples made from cut and pasting resources already in game somewhere.

I did not have to increase the size of the event window, you just lose view of 3-4 events up top (which is fairly inconsequential with a scroll bar).

Not having this is really the only reason I have to play dual-monitor.

I would really like to have fewer places to control time. One place to do it is enough. Having time control that do the same thing in each and every window of a game is plain bad interface design.

Good design would be to remove time control from all windows and have a small separate window for time control that you can put wherever you want instead in that case. Then you can put it next to or on top of your event log or wherever your prefer!
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: OkieMurse on February 28, 2014, 10:04:00 PM
Quote from: alex_brunius link=topic=5896. msg70235#msg70235 date=1393580833
I would really like to have fewer places to control time.  One place to do it is enough.  Having time control that do the same thing in each and every window of a game is plain bad interface design

Good design would be to remove time control from all windows and have a small separate window for time control that you can put wherever you want instead in that case.  Then you can put it next to or on top of your event log or wherever your prefer!

You put it a lot better than I did.  I agree with you, the small separate control would add much more flexibility and be simpler.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Vordarian on March 04, 2014, 04:48:29 AM
I dunno if that was already suggested, but a General Staff for the Army, in the same way as there is Fleet leadership for the Navy would be great.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: alex_brunius on March 08, 2014, 04:28:50 AM
You put it a lot better than I did.  I agree with you, the small separate control would add much more flexibility and be simpler.

Sorry for the harsh words. I'll try to be more constructive. Here is what I would like to see as a universal time control:

(http://i.imgur.com/pGA8zUD.jpg)

(Time control in the F3 System Maps does serve a purpose due to being different but this one could replace all other ones, including the one in F2 Economics).
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: TheDeadlyShoe on March 08, 2014, 04:45:23 AM
not sure VB can keep that tab on top?

damn thing screws up enough times every time i run a time control

the natural 'home screen' for the game is the system screen, in any case...
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: alex_brunius on March 08, 2014, 05:01:37 AM
not sure VB can keep that tab on top?

Most people today have 1080pixles vertical resolution so it's not needed. Dock it on top of (or below) the Events, Economy or whatever window you are using.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: andrewas on March 08, 2014, 06:51:30 AM
Or avoid the whole GUI issue and add hotkeys for time control.  Frees up space on the system and economy windows, and you don't need to worry about keeping a control panel visible.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Cheet4h on March 08, 2014, 08:21:09 AM
Quote from: alex_brunius link=topic=5896. msg70471#msg70471 date=1394276497
Most people today have 1080pixles vertical resolution so it's not needed.  Dock it on top of (or below) the Events, Economy or whatever window you are using.

While I run a dual monitor setup, with one 1920x1080 screen as the main screen and a 1280x1014 as secondary, I mostly set the system view to fullscreen, while the events window and galaxy window sit on my secondary screen, the galaxy window fullscreen with events over it.  I'm not sure where I'd put the time control if it wouldn't stay on top automatically, since the game often enough manages to put the events window behind the galaxy window and I have to wait until the end of the current cycle to bring it back to front.

Ah well, I need more monitors ^^
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: alex_brunius on March 08, 2014, 12:34:39 PM

While I run a dual monitor setup, with one 1920x1080 screen as the main screen and a 1280x1014 as secondary, I mostly set the system view to fullscreen, while the events window and galaxy window sit on my secondary screen, the galaxy window fullscreen with events over it.  I'm not sure where I'd put the time control if it wouldn't stay on top automatically, since the game often enough manages to put the events window behind the galaxy window and I have to wait until the end of the current cycle to bring it back to front.

So you don't have a problem at all since you already have time control in the System Map View then? Check.

The original suggestion was to add time control to windows that are not fullscreen. I suggested a better solution is to have a separate small window that can be put above/below the windows that are not fullscreen.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Cheet4h on March 08, 2014, 04:38:10 PM
Quote from: alex_brunius link=topic=5896. msg70482#msg70482 date=1394303679
So you don't have a problem at all since you already have time control in the System Map View then? Check.

The original suggestion was to add time control to windows that are not fullscreen.  I suggested a better solution is to have a separate small window that can be put above/below the windows that are not fullscreen.

Ah, okay, I misunderstood it then.  I thought the notion were to remove time control from every window, like the system map, the F2-screen etc.  and only put in one central time control.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: alex_brunius on March 08, 2014, 04:42:35 PM
Ah, okay, I misunderstood it then.  I thought the notion were to remove time control from every window, like the system map, the F2-screen etc.  and only put in one central time control.

Your right, I did write that initially too :)
That was before I realized that it would be strange to remove it from the main window and that the F3 time control there has more options. I think we all mostly agree on a good suggestion for how time control should be handled now though.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: andrewas on March 12, 2014, 11:41:55 AM
It'd be nice if the game would abort autoturns in the event of an error.  I'm probably going to have to abandon this game just when it was getting interesting, after an attempt to bypass an NPR battle overnight left me with a few hundred five second increments to run and an error message popping up every time.  If it aborted those increments I might be able to fix it in SM mode, or at least run bigger increments in the hope the offending taskgroup gets destroyed sooner.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Haji on March 16, 2014, 11:41:17 AM
It would be nice to have more point defense options for ships when it comes to targeting. Right now all targeting is done automatically (unless you want to run point defense in manual mode, which is far to micro-intensive) which can lead to some incoming salvos being ignored, while others are destroyed completely. What I'd like to have is following options:

Target largest salvo - self explanatory
Targets salvos larger than X - if your fleet has both anti-missiles and energy based point defense, then there is no point destroying all the salvos completely. This option will allow you to limit the use of anti-missiles by leaving some enemy missiles to be killed by point defense.
Target smallest salvo - This will allow you to designate ship (or ships) what will take care of remnants of enemy salvos, while the rest of the fleet concentrates on destroying bigger salvos.

Why would this be useful to have? For example, in my current campaign I had a fleet defending against a single missile wave comprised of twenty six salvos, each consisting of eighty missiles. Due to automated targeting some salvos have been destroyed, most have lost about two thirds of it's strength, and few have remained completely intact. When they reached my last line of defense (ships equipped with Gauss cannons) the situation repeated itself with my escorts targeting the smallest salvos (as far as I can tell) leaving several others intact. While most of my ships have received no damage, several has been grievously wounded (the entire wave was spread evenly between all my ships).

If I had the above options I could reduce all the enemy salvos by the same amount, which means the damage would be properly spread, rather than concentrated. And since my ships had shields, I could probably avoid receiving any damage to the armor.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on March 16, 2014, 12:08:13 PM
Yes, I would agree that an option close to this would be very useful. I almost always make fleet with a good balance of AMM and beam PD and this has been a continuous problem. I certainly do NOT want my AMM ships to completely destroy incoming salvoes before they start engaging salvoes further out and rather have my PD engage the rest and shields will take the occasional leaker.

I generally shoot about one missile on each enemy missile so I don't have time to shoot all salves down before the reach my ships, given technology it roughly equal. This will give rather good results but better granularity in the AMM behaviour would be nice.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on March 16, 2014, 02:43:56 PM
Another thing related to this is that cannons set on Final Fire PD should fire their weapons at incoming missiles as long as no missiles are within a certain radius of the ship. Currently I have to micromanage this and it is sort of tedious.

I set my long range cannons on wide area fire and when any missiles are between 10-15 seconds away I switch to Final fire for that fire-control. The weapons will fire both Wide Area fire and finish with Final-Fire.

The setting should perhaps just switch from Wide Area to Final Fire when any missiles are within the weapons recharge time +5 seconds. It would obviously use the weapon with the longest recharge rate attached to that fire-control. This would optimise the usage of beam PD without unnecessary micromanagement from the player.

It is obviously still useful with ONLY Wide Area fire to shoot at missile that are passing by the ships, but Final Fire should perhaps work as above.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: NihilRex on March 28, 2014, 08:22:55 PM
Rotating the Galaxy Map - When your map takes off in one direction and you don't want to redo the whole thing to make it more sensible.

The equation according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_coordinate_system#Rotation is

Code: [Select]
To rotate a figure counterclockwise around the origin by some angle \theta is equivalent to replacing every point with coordinates (x,y) by the point with coordinates (x',y'), wherex'=x \cos \theta - y \sin \thetay'=x \sin \theta + y \cos \theta .Thus: (x',y') = ((x \cos \theta - y \sin \theta\,) , (x \sin \theta + y \cos \theta\,))
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Hydrofoil on March 31, 2014, 07:01:10 AM
Still no word on 6.4 release then?
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: boggo2300 on March 31, 2014, 03:39:05 PM
Grease is the word!

Matt
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Erik Luken on March 31, 2014, 11:20:01 PM
Grease is the word!

Matt

I beg to differ. The word is bird.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: SilverWolf54 on April 04, 2014, 06:20:21 PM
im differ what u differ the bird is the world
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: davidr on April 06, 2014, 01:18:47 PM
Could it be possible to show (say on the System Generation and Display screen - F9 ) which bodies have had a geological team complete a mineral scan. At present ( and I will happily be contradicted ) , there does not appear to be a simple way of knowing which bodies have had a geological team complete a visit after they have left.

I role play by transporting my geological teams to specific bodies which automatically creates a colony. After I receive an event notice that the mineral scan has been completed I transport the team off the body and then abandon the colony until at some further point in time it is used as a source of minerals or living planet , when a colony is again created.

However in between the two actions there is no easy visual identification that a physical mineral has taken place after abandoning the colony. I therefore have to keep written notes of which bodies have had actual physical visits.

DavidR
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Paul M on April 07, 2014, 02:25:56 AM
In the summary page for a body it states if the body in question had a ground survey performed or not.  Admittedly this isn't exactly what you want, and I'd not mind seeing something somewhere in the system overview to say which bodies have had it as well.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: alex_brunius on April 08, 2014, 01:36:07 AM
In the summary page for a body it states if the body in question had a ground survey performed or not.  Admittedly this isn't exactly what you want, and I'd not mind seeing something somewhere in the system overview to say which bodies have had it as well.

But if the colony is abandoned that screen is not available, correct?
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Paul M on April 08, 2014, 01:46:26 AM
Yeah that is true, and unfortunately it is the only place I know of the game states that the ground survey was done.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: ScottyC on April 08, 2014, 10:13:11 PM
Just picked up the game a couple weeks ago, and have been loving it so far.  If suggestions are still being taken, I have a few.

1.  "Grant Shore Leave" option (similar to overhaul or resupply or refuel).  I'm sure this has been mentioned before, so no elaboration needed.

2.  "Auto Turn NPR Bypass" Make an option for auto-turn to not cause an interrupt when an NPR interacts with another NPR.  I've been getting 1 to 3 day interrupts for a full year of in-game time due to them going back and forth on thermal sensor detections, and it's killing my 70year game.

3.  An audible sound option for "Turn finished" when the game is done calculating the last turn.  During NPR battles or other long periods of computation, this would be nice if I was going to let the system run while I did something else.  I see the option for "voice and effects on" but it didn't seem to output any sound for this.

4.  NPR battle bubble - Currently you are able to select (in SM mode) to make a system bubble, to assist with quickening the pace of battles for small-time increment processing.  It would be nice if there was an option/system to erect a battle system bubble when two NPRs engage in combat if you have no visibility over said battle, and your current selection is on a longer time increment, so the processing time would be greatly reduced.  Make a general "everyone" update every 1 hour or something.

5.  Overdrive module - I feel like it would help if there was a module that could drastically increase movement speed at the cost of obscene amounts of fuel burn.  It would heighten the use of ships other than missile and anti-missile ships.  Perhaps something like increasing the power of your engines 2x 3x 4x for 2000x 3000x 4000x fuel use after a short boot up period? Then make it so your weapons suffer from the same speed targeting penalty at those speeds, so you're forced to slow down once the range has been closed.  Missiles that move slower than your boosted movement speed cannot be fired while boosting.  Maybe also cause strain to the ship and accelerate IFR per 30 seconds of usage? It seems like this would give a new purpose to beam and gauss ships without changing or nerfing missiles.

6.  Ignore Asteroid option - An option for surveyor ships to ignore asteroids "Survey next five non-asteroid system objects"

7.  Lock View on task force - I can lock views on planets, but not on task forces it seems.  At least not when zoomed in - Frequently in battles I'd "focus" on my task force and zoom in, but after the next turn they would zoom out of my view, leaving me with an empty blue square.  Have to zoom back out, re-select, and zoom back in.

ScottyC
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: xeryon on April 08, 2014, 11:13:14 PM
6 is available as "Survey planet or moon"  It does skip comets but it ignores asteroids.

7 Technically, it is the same for planets as well but their orbital periods are so great that from one time increment to the next the body seems to not move.  Next time you can perform a 5 day increment max-zoom in on a planet and you should notice it do the same thing.  I am almost certain there is nothing that can be done about this based on the responses of others previously.  As I understand it the map isn't a 'live' map so it is incapable of updating in that way.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: NihilRex on April 08, 2014, 11:22:39 PM
If possible and reasonably feasible, some way to make it so I don't end up with 5/7/8/9 fully surveyed systems, and no more jump points.

I regularily have someone else set the SM password so I don't get tempted to meddle post-setup when trying out a scenario, and if they are not available to unlock it, I have to start a new game.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: ShadowLop on April 09, 2014, 05:13:46 AM
Just picked up the game a couple weeks ago, and have been loving it so far.  If suggestions are still being taken, I have a few.

1.  "Grant Shore Leave" option (similar to overhaul or resupply or refuel).  I'm sure this has been mentioned before, so no elaboration needed.

Crews take shore leave automatically by being in orbit around a colony, no special order needed. I think they need a certain population at the colony though - I forget the exact minimum.
Alternatively, use a ship/NPR with Recreational Facilities component - being in the same location as one of these will also count as shore leave.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Kaiser on April 09, 2014, 06:57:24 AM
I don't know if it was already suggested, probably yes because it's obvious, but, I would like to ask to Steve, why don't you disable game interruptions when the human player does not see and it is not affected in what is happening beetween NPRs? I mean, in a standard game with 1 NPR at start and 30% chance to appear another it, the game suffers a lot of annoying interruptions because interceptions, fightings etc., but because this happens in other systems, beetween computer controlled race, these interruptions may be skipped and the interceptions, fightings could go ahead normally.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Paul M on April 09, 2014, 07:26:06 AM
I don't know if it was already suggested, probably yes because it's obvious, but, I would like to ask to Steve, why don't you disable game interruptions when the human player does not see and it is not affected in what is happening beetween NPRs? I mean, in a standard game with 1 NPR at start and 30% chance to appear another it, the game suffers a lot of annoying interruptions because interceptions, fightings etc., but because this happens in other systems, beetween computer controlled race, these interruptions may be skipped and the interceptions, fightings could go ahead normally.

But the game can't "Go Ahead Normally" when the NPRs are fighting.  The combat works basically on 5 sec intervals once missiles start impacting as you have AAM missile fire cycles, point defence cycles and detections etc.  Then there are pauses where you can move by 30 seconds to 30 min and then follows another phase where you are down to 5 second turns again.  There is no "automatic" resolution function that adds up the attack value and compares it between both sides and determines a winner.  The game is built around a 5 s combat turn, and when combat starts it is very hard to get too much away from that.

So you can't advance the time in time segments of 1 day while an NPR is fighting.  It doesn't matter if you are being updated on the battle or not, the database is being updated on a 5 game second basis.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: NihilRex on April 09, 2014, 01:48:52 PM
Crews take shore leave automatically by being in orbit around a colony, no special order needed. I think they need a certain population at the colony though - I forget the exact minimum.
Alternatively, use a ship/NPR with Recreational Facilities component - being in the same location as one of these will also count as shore leave.

What he means is grant shore leave like the overhaul command: "Stay here until the crew completes shore leave, then continue with your order list."
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: ScottyC on April 09, 2014, 04:44:34 PM
Quote from: NihilRex link=topic=5896.  msg71175#msg71175 date=1397069332
What he means is grant shore leave like the overhaul command: "Stay here until the crew completes shore leave, then continue with your order list.  "

Exactly - Not too bad of an issue on military ships since overhauling them almost always takes as much time as shore leave, or more, but would be nice for survey vessels.

EDIT: Another idea - Be able to create scientist teams or teacher/student relationships where a more experienced scientist has bonuses to pass on his knowledge to a younger scientist in his same field.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: ShadowLop on April 09, 2014, 06:38:49 PM
What he means is grant shore leave like the overhaul command: "Stay here until the crew completes shore leave, then continue with your order list."

Then yes, this would be a very awesome idea.

Also, when you have 600+ systems, it burns a ridiculous amount of fuel to get fleets from one place to another.
Building up a new shipyard/supply depot that can handle massive warfleets is...difficult and you still burn all that fuel getting ships between them.

How about a high-end tech line developed from jump tech that can either build a directed warp-gate, or re-align an existing gated jump point to another gated jump point (at massive time/expense)? That way you can skip the 7 completely empty systems and get to the frontline quicker.
Or maybe the opposite of Hyperdrive: Cruise Engines. A tech that can be added instead of a Hyperdrive and instead decreases thrust for increased fuel efficiency?

This would make moving fleets around much more viable.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on April 09, 2014, 07:21:16 PM
Then yes, this would be a very awesome idea.

Also, when you have 600+ systems, it burns a ridiculous amount of fuel to get fleets from one place to another.
Building up a new shipyard/supply depot that can handle massive warfleets is...difficult and you still burn all that fuel getting ships between them.

How about a high-end tech line developed from jump tech that can either build a directed warp-gate, or re-align an existing gated jump point to another gated jump point (at massive time/expense)? That way you can skip the 7 completely empty systems and get to the frontline quicker.
Or maybe the opposite of Hyperdrive: Cruise Engines. A tech that can be added instead of a Hyperdrive and instead decreases thrust for increased fuel efficiency?

This would make moving fleets around much more viable.

You can use Tugs to drag ships around for very little fuel use if that is a problem.

In general I don't find that fuel usage is such a large problem in the middle to late game when my ships become bigger. Bigger ships means bigger more fuel efficient engines. If you also combine that with more advanced fuel efficiency technology you should not face such huge problems with fuel shortages later in the game. In worst case scenario you can drag your most expensive (fuel consuming ships) with Tugs, smaller gunships/FAC ships is ferried in fuel efficient Escort Carriers.

I would personally not want to remove the logistical and strategic problem with technological shortcuts. I want to have as many problems to solve as possible... ;)
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: NihilRex on April 09, 2014, 08:24:15 PM

Or maybe the opposite of Hyperdrive: Cruise Engines. A tech that can be added instead of a Hyperdrive and instead decreases thrust for increased fuel efficiency?

That already exists, and has a name.  Commercial Engines.

What would really solve this problem would be the ability to mount 2+ types of engines, and switch between them.   Added weight and cost in exchange for strategic options seems to fit thematically.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Narmio on April 09, 2014, 09:57:39 PM
But the game can't "Go Ahead Normally" when the NPRs are fighting.  The combat works basically on 5 sec intervals once missiles start impacting as you have AAM missile fire cycles, point defence cycles and detections etc.  Then there are pauses where you can move by 30 seconds to 30 min and then follows another phase where you are down to 5 second turns again.  There is no "automatic" resolution function that adds up the attack value and compares it between both sides and determines a winner.  The game is built around a 5 s combat turn, and when combat starts it is very hard to get too much away from that.

So you can't advance the time in time segments of 1 day while an NPR is fighting.  It doesn't matter if you are being updated on the battle or not, the database is being updated on a 5 game second basis.

Unless there was an option to automatically resolve NPR combat when it's occurring more than N systems from anywhere you've discovered.  The algorithms to do so wouldn't be particularly complicated -- I mean, who really cares if some precursors kill two instead of three of an NPR's ships before being overwhelmed.  We can RP the resulting situation either way.

If Steve isn't interested in designing an algorithm for rough combat resolution then I'm sure the community can come up with something.  Integrating such a "quick resolution" function with the code would involve a single check made per-system every time the player discovers a new system -- if a system is not within N of one visited by the player, set a "skip" flag. Whenever the player discovers a new system you only have to propagate out from that system to all within N (continuing the recursion if you encounter another "skip" flag, stopping if you don't) to update that flag for every system. It would, of course, only follow jump points that have been explored (because my understanding is that Aurora does not actually pre-calculate the stellar graph, it's invented as jump points are explored?), but that doesn't matter -- undiscovered systems are always treated as skippable, even if they end up next door. Then whenever a ship fires it just checks that flag (which hopefully is in memory somewhere in the system object, not requiring a DB call) and either calls the quick resolution function or continues normally.

And, of course, it would be entirely voluntary.

I admit I'm a Doylist RPer rather than a Watsonian (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WatsonianVersusDoylist). For me, the purpose of Aurora is to help me tell stories, not to be a simulation.  It achieves the goal of being a storytelling aid by being a simulation, but as a Doylist the first goal is always the most important. I recognise I'm different from a lot of roleplayers in that respect, but that's why I'd suggest something like this be voluntary.

If there's some interest in this, we could spin off a thread discussing how to automate a fight.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Shipright on April 10, 2014, 09:22:04 PM
I feel like you could probably make this easier. If the event doesn't trigger a player log entry (other than the interrupt message itself) the game continues to auto cycle through whatever increments the AI needs until you reach the turn increment the player chose. Technically you are still going to run through all the interrupts for AI purposes but at least the player himself doesn't have to sit there hitting next turn.

I don't personally mind long turn processing times. What I do mind is hitting the button, assuming and accepting its going to take a few minutes to process, go get a snack/make dinner/kiss the wife, come back and find out instead of running a turn for ten minutes to get to the increment I selected it got interrupted one minute in and was just sitting there waiting for me to hit "next" for the other nine.

Of I can build a robot hand to just press "next" over and over. Both are probably as likely to happen :D
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on April 11, 2014, 05:27:50 AM
That already exists, and has a name.  Commercial Engines.

What would really solve this problem would be the ability to mount 2+ types of engines, and switch between them.   Added weight and cost in exchange for strategic options seems to fit thematically.

Yes I think that a natural progression of the game mechanics would be to allow two engine types to be fitted to ships. One engine type is the primary engine that is always in use, this would be your typical cruise engine with good fuel efficiency and high stealth abilities. You then slap on some very high boosted fuel guzzling engines that simply add to your main engine for combat manoeuvring.

In my opinion this would be an interesting tactical/strategic choice to make on your ships.

Obviously combat engines would almost always be of the highest power level but how much space are you willing to sacrifice for combat speed and how much cruise speed do you want and at what cost in fuel and mass etc... of course the cruise engine would always have to be a military engine type.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Sharp on April 14, 2014, 06:44:26 AM
Not too sure if this has been suggested but it would be nice to be able to send yourself memo's for the future.  Basically an order or way to send yourself a message to yourself.

"On 14th Jan 2039 14:00:00 'Sol-Barnard's Star Defence Force Task Group to be relieved from Jump-Point'"

So the message pops up as an event, you can set what time the message will pop up and what the message reads, I would mainly use it for sorting out rotations for fleets in their duties but I suppose it could be used for other reminders like "Shipyard Retooling almost complete, recall Destroyer TG for refit"

I know you can set up time delays for orders although it would be nice to see the delay in the order list, so you can move Battle TG to Alpha Centauri Jump Point and make it wait there for 86400 (1 day) seconds before going to Barnard's Star Jump Point and waiting there for 86400 seconds before refuelling at earth but on order list it just appears as.

Move to Alpha Centauri Jump Point
Move to Barnard's Star Jump Point
Refuel at Earth

would be nicer if it was

Move to Alpha Centauri Jump Point
Move to Barnard's Star Jump Point (86400)
Refuel at Earth (86400)

so you can see the delay, and bonus if it updates if the order is currently being delayed, so after an hour (3600 seconds) at Alpha Centauri it looks like.

Move to Barnard's Star Jump Point (82800)
Refuel at Earth (86400)

So yeah those are my two suggestions, ability to give yourself an event message at a set time and be able to see order delay in Fleet Orders.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: sloanjh on April 15, 2014, 07:00:01 AM
Not too sure if this has been suggested but it would be nice to be able to send yourself memo's for the future.  Basically an order or way to send yourself a message to yourself.

LOL this was actually in SA oh so many years ago :)  I think it didn't make it into Aurora because SA was turn-based and Aurora is not.  Anyway +1 from me for this one.

John
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: boggo2300 on April 15, 2014, 04:38:40 PM
LOL this was actually in SA oh so many years ago :)  I think it didn't make it into Aurora because SA was turn-based and Aurora is not.  Anyway +1 from me for this one.

John

+1 from me too, it was a really useful feature in SA

Matt
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: wilddog5 on April 23, 2014, 01:21:33 AM
a number box on the race creation window for the amount of fast OB creation avalable.

i wanted to do a multi empire NPR start with everyone having just a basic start with no ships/ pdcs but the 4 of them started with 60+ ships and have massivly slowed the game (no wonder the test game takes forever for story updates)
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: IanD on April 23, 2014, 07:48:38 AM
In the F5 Class Design screen - available components - could a column be added to show number available in stockpile? This would be useful when using salvaged alien tech the player race cannot yet build.
Regards
Ian
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: davidr on April 25, 2014, 10:01:18 AM
Could we possibly have a method , on starting a game , of limiting the maximum number of jump points which may be found when surveying new systems. In my previous V6.3 game I regularly found new systems which then had from 6-8 jump points radiating from the system. This creates problems with arranging everything on the Galactic Map.

Just a thought - are the numbers of jump points found around a system related to the number of systems shown when starting a game  - e.g for a 1000 system game will you find more jump points per system than you would in a 500 system game ?

DavidR
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Steve Walmsley on April 26, 2014, 10:19:05 AM

Just a thought - are the numbers of jump points found around a system related to the number of systems shown when starting a game  - e.g for a 1000 system game will you find more jump points per system than you would in a 500 system game ?

DavidR

System generation is the same regardless of the size of the universe
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: MarcAFK on April 29, 2014, 10:41:05 PM
Steve, Could you make the "Source of colonists", "Stable" options available on bodies below 25 million population?
This would allow people to somewhat mitigate the Colony ship population dumping bug, while also allowing slightly more options for controlling how the CIVs move your populations around.

also
Just picked up the game a couple weeks ago, and have been loving it so far.  If suggestions are still being taken, I have a few.

1.  "Grant Shore Leave" option (similar to overhaul or resupply or refuel).  I'm sure this has been mentioned before, so no elaboration needed.

2.  "Auto Turn NPR Bypass" Make an option for auto-turn to not cause an interrupt when an NPR interacts with another NPR.  I've been getting 1 to 3 day interrupts for a full year of in-game time due to them going back and forth on thermal sensor detections, and it's killing my 70year game.

4.  NPR battle bubble - Currently you are able to select (in SM mode) to make a system bubble, to assist with quickening the pace of battles for small-time increment processing.  It would be nice if there was an option/system to erect a battle system bubble when two NPRs engage in combat if you have no visibility over said battle, and your current selection is on a longer time increment, so the processing time would be greatly reduced.  Make a general "everyone" update every 1 hour or something.

ScottyC
I would love all these to be implemented. Note:
But the game can't "Go Ahead Normally" when the NPRs are fighting.  The combat works basically on 5 sec intervals once missiles start impacting as you have AAM missile fire cycles, point defence cycles and detections etc.  Then there are pauses where you can move by 30 seconds to 30 min and then follows another phase where you are down to 5 second turns again.  There is no "automatic" resolution function that adds up the attack value and compares it between both sides and determines a winner.  The game is built around a 5 s combat turn, and when combat starts it is very hard to get too much away from that.

So you can't advance the time in time segments of 1 day while an NPR is fighting.  It doesn't matter if you are being updated on the battle or not, the database is being updated on a 5 game second basis.
Of course the game still needs to hit 5 second increments to resolve the battles, but what I ask is that the game should continue doing 5 second turns or whatever is needed untill the battle is resolved, without needing any player interaction. Also, would it be possible to have a window popup when turns are processing showing some kind of information related to what is going on, this might help to see if the game has actually crashed when windows says it's not responding. The window could be very simple, a small window the size of those damn error windows, laid out something like;

Code: [Select]
Aurora Turn Process                    [x]Aurora is processing the next turn, don't panic!Auto turn: [on/off]  Increment remaining: [N\$]Last increment: [5 seconds]Event: Hidden Activity  (Tells the player what caused the last reduced increment, with sm mode turned on this might read NPR battle or New sensor contact or something)Progress: Doing stuff (This area could have list status of what the game is doing, everything doesn't need to be listed, specifically nothing that would be a spoiler, but this might actually help to diagnose what's causing game lockup or slowdown)[Panic button]    (An end turn button, please for the love of god let me end the autoturns without having to click that tiny checkbox at the exact right time between ticks)
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: alex_brunius on April 30, 2014, 03:27:50 AM
Steve, Could you make the "Source of colonists", "Stable" options available on bodies below 25 million population?
This would allow people to somewhat mitigate the Colony ship population dumping bug, while also allowing slightly more options for controlling how the CIVs move your populations around.

Other ways to mitigate the population dumping problem would be:
- Treat all pop enroute as if they already had arrived for calculating infrastructure demand
- Make the civilian colony ships significantly slower then the freighters ( so infrastructure arrives first)
- Change mechanics so that the infrastructure need is the amount to live "comfortably" and population reduction only happens you have lower then say 80%, 75% or even 50% of the needed infrastructure.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: MarcAFK on April 30, 2014, 06:01:45 AM
Maybe minor overcrowding could just reduce economic productivity and population growth. A 10% variance should be ok.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on April 30, 2014, 07:30:52 AM
- Treat all pop enroute as if they already had arrived for calculating infrastructure demand

Is it not easier to just treat all pop enroute as if it had arrived for both infrastructure AND new population demand. Make sure this calculation is done per ship that load population so that there are not ten colonizers loading population at the same time.

On a side note on population...

I would like for planets that has a high unemployment to get some reduction in production/economic efficiency or perhaps other political effects. Too high unemployment should also result in some unrest. I think there should be more stuff modifying these values overall that you must deal with. It just is too easy to keep people content in the game outside of role-play.

Perhaps if a world don't get enough civilian trade ships (based in their civilian production) they should start to suffer in production/economic efficiency as well, this lower their expectation for trade and soon they reach an equilibrium, once trade ships show up more often the economy will pick up again and start flourishing. These calculation should be done in such a way that it look at how many ships have been these trading in the last 12 month and compared to what the colony would need. Perhaps these calculations would be done once each month, they should not impact performance very much.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: alex_brunius on April 30, 2014, 01:25:10 PM
Is it not easier to just treat all pop enroute as if it had arrived for both infrastructure AND new population demand. Make sure this calculation is done per ship that load population so that there are not ten colonizers loading population at the same time.

On a side note on population...

I would like for planets that has a high unemployment to get some reduction in production/economic efficiency or perhaps other political effects. Too high unemployment should also result in some unrest. I think there should be more stuff modifying these values overall that you must deal with. It just is too easy to keep people content in the game outside of role-play.

Perhaps if a world don't get enough civilian trade ships (based in their civilian production) they should start to suffer in production/economic efficiency as well, this lower their expectation for trade and soon they reach an equilibrium, once trade ships show up more often the economy will pick up again and start flourishing. These calculation should be done in such a way that it look at how many ships have been these trading in the last 12 month and compared to what the colony would need. Perhaps these calculations would be done once each month, they should not impact performance very much.

Agree with everything. Some very interesting options available for cool gameplay around unemployment and trade goods that would probably not be so complex to add to the game considering how much of the groundwork is already in place.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Sharp on April 30, 2014, 06:39:53 PM
Probably not best place to discuss it fully but I don't really think unemployment is an issue, or at least it needs to be more finely tuned, the available workers doesn't neccessarily mean unemployed workers, civilian shipping lines probably use a lot of workers especially as they need a variety of shipyards themselves etc... available workers just means populations not working in government industries and govt has first choice on workers.

Would be interesting to see that if you lacked available workers that maybe civillian lines would have slower growth, and actually show unemployed workers as well perhaps but tbh it might just be an annoying layer of micro-management, would probably just build a bunch of financial centres or a commercial shipyard just to reduce unemployment.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: alex_brunius on April 30, 2014, 07:38:15 PM
Something I really would like to see:

Extremely fuel ineffective conventional engines. Conventional Engine technology hints towards extremely ineffective Rockets. It would feel much more real if they would struggle getting to a single planet and back even when having 50% of the tonnage as fuel.

Power is not the primary limit today for rockets, but fuel efficiency.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: MarcAFK on April 30, 2014, 11:20:44 PM
Actually I would like to see that, every time I use conventional engines during teh start of the game looking at the range listed in trillions of kilometers for a few thousand litres of fuel just seems wrong.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: xeryon on May 01, 2014, 08:15:04 AM
I would like to see Trans-Newtonian Technology be a research item without a research class bonus or a bonus that applies regardless of research class.  At current it is a Construction/Production technology.  If I do a conventional start it's a crap shoot on if it is going to take a couple years or a decade based on my starting scientists.  If it is modified to take advantage of any scientist class I think the RP needed should be increased as 3 years to transition from conventional to TN is kind of quick.

I just made a random new game and I have a 15% A1 CP scientist.  To research TN is going to take 3 years and 45 days.
In opposition to that if I assign my otherwise best scientist, a 15% A6 SFC scientist it will take 9 years and 155 days.

In addition to that, to expand on conventional start options I would like to be able to build conventional industry, ground unit training facilities and research facilities.  The inability to build additional shipyards is an irritant but it is very rare in a conventional start to ever need more than the opening yard.

Really, I would just like to see expansions on early start options all the way around.  It always feels like the advancement speed from conventional game start to exploring outside the solar system advances at an unrealistic speed without enough things going on in-between.  Unless you are doing a multi-faction start the first 15 years of a conventional start game are, frankly, boring.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Akhillis on May 03, 2014, 05:42:16 AM
Class Design - Hide unused
Like the "Hide Obsolete" tickbox, only instead it hides unused designs (i.e. classes where there are no ships in service).

It would be nice to be able to give Task Forces a priority for assignments the same way you can with ship classes.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Haji on May 12, 2014, 05:56:13 PM
It would be nice if we could fine tune beam fire control (tracking speed and range). Right now we're limited to about eight choices only for each of those values, and while it's normally not that big of a deal, it's a nightmare to design proper, small and effective beam fire control for fighters, where every 0.01 HS matters.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Rich.h on May 13, 2014, 07:07:13 AM
Not sure if this is possible due to the spreadsheet nature of the game, however being able to select multiple ground units at once would be a great time saver. I have tried both shift/ctrl click and can only select one ground unit at a time. When you are trying to either disband/convert to cadre a large number of units this can become a tiresome task.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Rastaman on May 14, 2014, 01:56:55 PM
Please review the build costs for fuel tanks. For comparison, two designs. The freighter has 50% more engine space, and displaces almost four times the tonnage. Still, it costs less than half as much as the oiler. The oiler's fuel tank costs 1230 BP. I mean, Sorium is nasty stuff, but isn't this a little too much?

Code: [Select]
Rappahannock class Oiler    15 950 tons     58 Crew     1523.4 BP      TCS 319  TH 800  EM 02507 km/s     Armour 1-56     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 1     PPV 0MSP 60    Max Repair 50 MSPIntended Deployment Time: 3 months    Spare Berths 0    Roll Royce Trent 2500 200 EP Commercial MP (4)    Power 200    Fuel Use 7.96%    Signature 200    Exp 5%Fuel Capacity 10 250 000 Litres    Range 1452.7 billion km   (6706 days at full power)This design is classed as a Commercial Vessel for maintenance purposes
Code: [Select]
Red Cloud class Freighter    59 900 tons     92 Crew     703.2 BP      TCS 1198  TH 1200  EM 01001 km/s     Armour 1-136     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 1     PPV 0MSP 7    Max Repair 50 MSPIntended Deployment Time: 3 months    Spare Berths 1    Cargo 50000    Roll Royce Trent 2500 200 EP Commercial MP (6)    Power 200    Fuel Use 7.96%    Signature 200    Exp 5%Fuel Capacity 1 000 000 Litres    Range 37.7 billion km   (436 days at full power)This design is classed as a Commercial Vessel for maintenance purposes
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: swarm_sadist on May 23, 2014, 05:57:40 PM
Please review the build costs for fuel tanks. For comparison, two designs. The freighter has 50% more engine space, and displaces almost four times the tonnage. Still, it costs less than half as much as the oiler. The oiler's fuel tank costs 1230 BP. I mean, Sorium is nasty stuff, but isn't this a little too much?

Are you using the largest fuel tanks possible? Because they become more cost effective when you research the very large and ultra large fuel tanks instead of using a dozen regular ones.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Haji on May 25, 2014, 01:37:00 PM
Given the new, ridiculous number of brown dwarfs in the 6.42 Aurora, I'd love to see a space module that could ignite them into miniature suns. Can come in two flavors. The first one would be a rather expensive technology (200 000 RP or more) that would allow production of a massive module (200 000T or more) that would be very expensive. The other flavor would be already constructed bases guarded by a truly massive precursor fleets (20+ vessels) which you can obtain rather early, turning that one useless brown dwarf orbited by two dozen frozen objects into a miniature sun with several thriving colonies.

As a side note, as the number of real life objects gets updated in Aurora, we get more and more useless systems. As such it may be a good idea to rethink ships speeds, distances of jump points from the local star and distance over which shipping lines do business (which I believe is currently limited to only four systems from the capital).
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Jaque_Thay on June 06, 2014, 06:08:21 PM
Not sure if it has been suggested already but it would be cool to see details for destroyed/decommissioned ships and retired/killed officers.  I've been documenting significant individuals as part of my gameplay and an officer who was never particularly prominent but whose name cropped up a few times has just died - now I realise I can't give him an obituary because I don't even know how old he was!

If that would add too much strain to the database, maybe add it for 90 days after the officer/ship goes out of active service just so the information can be retrieved?
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: sloanjh on June 07, 2014, 06:17:25 AM
Not sure if it has been suggested already but it would be cool to see details for destroyed/decommissioned ships and retired/killed officers.  I've been documenting significant individuals as part of my gameplay and an officer who was never particularly prominent but whose name cropped up a few times has just died - now I realise I can't give him an obituary because I don't even know how old he was!

If that would add too much strain to the database, maybe add it for 90 days after the officer/ship goes out of active service just so the information can be retrieved?

Dead/retired officers used to stay around.  The ended up generating a lot of clutter, which is why they don't anymore.

That being said, I think your 90 day idea is a great one (it could even be 30 days or so, since that would be plenty of time to grab stats) for filtering out the clutter.  +1

John
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Bgreman on June 16, 2014, 09:46:40 AM
Going to suggest this again, as it's  been a while:

Make it so that when you move ships around between task groups, the task group speed isn't automatically set to the max for the task group.

I keep lots of task groups at speed 1 kps at colonies, for holding new ship construction or for overhaul or whatever.  I am generally trying to hide the performance of these vessels from other player races, but any time a new ship is added to a TG (or a ship removed from one for that matter), the speed of all TGs involved in the transfer is set to the maximum, rather than keeping it at what I have it set at.

So basically, it looks like this right now (Pseudocode):

Code: [Select]
TransferShips(){    for each (Ship ship in GetShipsToTransfer())    {        SourceTaskGroup.RemoveShip(ship);        DestTaskGroup.AddShip(ship);    }    SourceTaskGroup.Speed = CalculateMaxSpeedForTaskGroup(SouceTaskGroup);    DestTaskGroup.Speed = CalculateMaxSpeedForTaskGroup(DestTaskGroup);}
Where it should look like this, ideally:

Code: [Select]
TransferShips(){    sourceOriginalSpeed = SourceTaskGroup.Speed;    destOriginalSpeed = DestTaskGroup.Speed;    for each (Ship ship in GetShipsToTransfer())    {        SourceTaskGroup.RemoveShip(ship);        DestTaskGroup.AddShip(ship);    }    SourceTaskGroup.Speed = Math.Minimum(sourceOriginalSpeed, CalculateMaxSpeedForTaskGroup(SouceTaskGroup));    DestTaskGroup.Speed = Math.Minimum(destOriginalSpeed, CalculateMaxSpeedForTaskGroup(DestTaskGroup);}
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: JacenHan on June 16, 2014, 04:00:44 PM
Small suggestion: An expansion option in shipyards to expand to a specified size. This would be a good micromanagement saver in expanding very large shipyards, especially commercial ones.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: wilddog5 on June 23, 2014, 02:17:46 AM
i think that this might have been suggested before but i am bringing this up again as the new NPR home world starts allow for this to be a major improvement

allowing NPR to go from conventional to Trans newtonion tech

This would allow for a lot of very intresting starts, from you developing trans tech and the NPRs getting it through the cive tech transfer when you go 2 levels above the other players, to a NPR starting as trans tech and you + 2-3 other NPRs having to catch up in the tech race.

also this also allows for potentially better performance in multi NPR starts as the NPRs don't start with an armada each and slowly build up over time instead
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: sloanjh on June 25, 2014, 07:05:03 AM
Ability to define multiple missile loadouts for a class.  I made this one oh so many years ago, and it just came up again in The Academy.

John
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Brian on June 27, 2014, 08:50:41 AM
I would like to suggest an increase in the usefulness of spinal weapons.  I like the basic thought and think that they should be available for any beam weapon.

In addition I think the spinal weapons should have an increased damage at longer ranges, and a somewhat better chances to hit at long range.  I am not advocating making them fire beyond normal beam weapons range, just increasing their accuracy at the longer ranges.

My first thought was to add to the range modifier.  While that would take care of extra damage at longer ranges it would not make a difference in the accuracy.  Does anybody have an idea that would be simple to apply.

My reasoning for the extra accuracy is that the entire ship is acting as the barrel, so more precision should be possible.

Brian
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Wolfius on June 27, 2014, 11:36:07 AM
My reasoning for the extra accuracy is that the entire ship is acting as the barrel, so more precision should be possible.

No, pretty sure the realistic choice would be the opposite; accuracy is largely limited to the precision of the ship's thrusters in maneuvering, with accuracy within phenominally tiny fractions of a degree neccessary as the ship maneuvers in combat and pushes the entire mass of the ship around. You don't need anything close to that level of precision; not only can you make course corrections enroute, but TN ships travel while constantly under thrust, so there's no penalty for it. The only realistic option would be something like a 'precision maneuvering unit' component or engine value.

A turret's gearing has a much lower mass to deal with and is similarly a rather specialised bit of kit; quick and accurate laying of the guns on maneuvering point targets hundreds of thousands of kilometers away is the one and only thing they're designed to do. They have no reason to be less acurate; if anything it's turrets that should enjoy the accuracy boost VS target range.

Also, any accuracy bonus or penalty applied to spinal mounts for this reason would also be applied to all unturreted weapons; fixed mount is fixed mount.

If you want a range modifier, you'd have to some up with some special technology(easy enough) that it would make sense not to apply to normal unturreted weapons(not so much). Spinal weapons aren't actually that special, they're just somewhat larger versions of unturreted beam weapons - not even true spinals unless it's a fairly small ship.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Charlie Beeler on June 27, 2014, 03:56:34 PM
<snip> but TN ships travel while constantly under thrust <snip>

I'm deliberately quoting this out of context to make a specific point.

Aurora does not use (ie deliberately ignores) Newtonian movement mechanics. So there is not thrust for movement, muchless thrusters for maneuvering.  The movement model is functionally inertialess.  This is why ships stop when they run out of fuel instead of drifting on the last vector and there is not tech to compensate for high levels of inertia.

If and when Newtonian Aurora is released this will change.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Charlie Beeler on June 27, 2014, 04:17:49 PM
I would like to suggest an increase in the usefulness of spinal weapons.  I like the basic thought and think that they should be available for any beam weapon.

In addition I think the spinal weapons should have an increased damage at longer ranges, and a somewhat better chances to hit at long range.  I am not advocating making them fire beyond normal beam weapons range, just increasing their accuracy at the longer ranges.

My first thought was to add to the range modifier.  While that would take care of extra damage at longer ranges it would not make a difference in the accuracy.  Does anybody have an idea that would be simple to apply.

My reasoning for the extra accuracy is that the entire ship is acting as the barrel, so more precision should be possible.

Brian
First I agree that spinal weapons should have a different, heavier damage model.  I'd be in agreement with a straight linear model.  It doesn't seem like much at first.  But once you go past a couple of range modifier brackets it is significant.

Currently beam fire controls are a straight linear reduction.  I'd be in favor of a mechanic for spinal mounts that provides a percentage bonus with the range modifier.  Perhaps tied to a lack of heading change that allow for the long range refinement of accuracy.  This would be difficult to justify for spinal mounts over standard mounts though.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Bgreman on July 07, 2014, 05:31:08 PM
I'm deliberately quoting this out of context to make a specific point.

Aurora does not use (ie deliberately ignores) Newtonian movement mechanics. So there is not thrust for movement, muchless thrusters for maneuvering.  The movement model is functionally inertialess.  This is why ships stop when they run out of fuel instead of drifting on the last vector and there is not tech to compensate for high levels of inertia.

If and when Newtonian Aurora is released this will change.

I've always interpreted it as the ships ARE under thrust, but are interacting with the fluid-like Trans-Newtonian dimension(s), which provide(s) some kind of drag.  Pretty sure this was in Steve's fluff somewhere, maybe one of his earlier write-ups.

Found it:

History of the Commonwealth of Free States

[...]

Up until 2020, space exploration consisted of unmanned probes with little financial support for manned missions. China sent a manned mission to the moon in 2018 but abandoned further missions to concentrate on earthly expansion. After the carnage of the China Wars, the three superpowers turned to space to try to gain an edge over each other in future conflicts. The smaller powers followed suit, determined not to be left behind. In 2036, a commonwealth science team examining the possibilities of several outlandish propulsion systems made a startling discovery; the existence of another dimension, close to our own, but with radically different physical laws, the most significant difference being that space-time in the other dimension had the properties of a fluid rather than a vacuum

Although they could not find a way to move from our own reality into the nearby universe, the theoretical work of the scientists resulted in the discovered of previously unknown elements with strange compositions that seemed to be affected by the presence of this universe. Unfortunately, almost all of the elements were only found within the molten core of the planet and would require significant effort to access. Given the significance of the discovery, sufficient funds were quickly made available and core mining techniques developed. Once in the possession of sufficient quantities of the minerals, the scientists discovered the minerals somehow intruded into the space-time of the alternate dimension and that spacecraft built from these elements would be affected by some of the physical laws of that universe. They theorized that this would allow spacecraft to turn in space like ships in water but it would also quickly slow them to a stop if their engines ceased operating. A secondary effect was that the mass of such a ship would be dramatically reduced allowing much higher speeds from conventional power systems. Finally, it was discovered that sensors and communication systems constructed from some of the new elements could send energy signals through the other dimension at a speed much greater than light. Within a solar system, communication and sensors would effectively be real time.

This breakthrough meant that long range system exploration was finally a reality and the Commonwealth began diverting more and more funds to building a space-based capability. Such a discovery could not remain secret for long through and within a year, the other nations of the world learnt of the newly discovered dimension and the existence of the minerals, now known as Trans-Newtonian Elements, and began building their own shipyards and factories to support the exploration and exploitation of nearby space.

Two years later, the same team made two new discoveries, the first amazing and the second apocalyptic. Using new gravitational sensors developed from Trans-Newtonian Elements, the team discovered a number of gravitational fluctuations throughout our own space-time with no obvious cause. They theorized that these fluctuations might be caused by the existence of invisible wormholes forming between the gravitational wells of stars and that study of the gravitational fluctuations in a star system would provide the locations of these wormholes. Experimentation with the creation of tiny wormholes provided exactly the readings expected and the scientists informed the Commonwealth government that travel between star systems might be possible if the wormholes could be located and a way found to open them. Work began immediately on ship-based sensors to detect the wormholes and an engine capable of opening a wormhole and taking a ship through it.

Emphasis mine.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Vandermeer on July 07, 2014, 06:22:27 PM
What?!?

...And here I thought myself original just a week ago when trying to come up with some explanation for all the Aurora technology...
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Theodidactus on July 07, 2014, 06:39:03 PM
obviously you all are wrong and spacecraft are driven by invisible angels behind them beating their wings and driving the things forward.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: IanD on July 08, 2014, 07:54:30 AM
To go with the research anomalies you now need the ability to target your salvage ship downloads to a particular system to make most efficient use of the various research outposts in your empire.
Ian
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Hawkeye on July 08, 2014, 09:53:19 AM
To go with the research anomalies you now need the ability to target your salvage ship downloads to a particular system to make most efficient use of the various research outposts in your empire.
Ian

I may be missing/misunderstanding something here, but your salvager already have that ability.
There is a check-box on the "individual ship" page, history/notes/tech data tab to keep the ship from downloading tech data. Generally, I keep this checked until the ship reaches the system where I want that data to be downloaded to.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: IanD on July 09, 2014, 02:36:04 AM
I may be missing/misunderstanding something here, but your salvager already have that ability.
There is a check-box on the "individual ship" page, history/notes/tech data tab to keep the ship from downloading tech data. Generally, I keep this checked until the ship reaches the system where I want that data to be downloaded to.

Yes you can withhold all the data but not a particular piece of data. For example if I salvage a few precursor wrecks with a single salvager, I may get engine tech, armour tech, ECM tech etc. If I am researching the engine tech in one system and all others in the home system I don't really want to download the engine tech to the home system with all the other data. Hope this makes it clearer.
Ian
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Hawkeye on July 09, 2014, 09:52:21 AM
Yes you can withhold all the data but not a particular piece of data. For example if I salvage a few precursor wrecks with a single salvager, I may get engine tech, armour tech, ECM tech etc. If I am researching the engine tech in one system and all others in the home system I don't really want to download the engine tech to the home system with all the other data. Hope this makes it clearer.
Ian

Ah, I see. Haven´t played with 6.3/6.4 yet, so I wasn´t aware of the implications the new research anomalies brought with them.

Hm, thinking about it, how about the ability to _upload_ specific tech data into a ship again, I mean, it isn´t _gone_ it is just sitting in the computers of your research lab and if it fit into the salvager´s databanks and if that salvager was able to download that data to the labs, it sure should be possible to do the reverse.

Perhaps only salvagers (massive databanks that are part of the salvaging module) can hold/download/upload that huge amount of data, or how about creating a new module like "research databanks", so you could build a tech-courier?
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: IanD on July 10, 2014, 02:59:19 AM
Hm, thinking about it, how about the ability to _upload_ specific tech data into a ship again, I mean, it isn´t _gone_ it is just sitting in the computers of your research lab and if it fit into the salvager´s databanks and if that salvager was able to download that data to the labs, it sure should be possible to do the reverse.

Perhaps only salvagers (massive databanks that are part of the salvaging module) can hold/download/upload that huge amount of data, or how about creating a new module like "research databanks", so you could build a tech-courier?

Either or both of those suggestions would be good
Ian
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Whitecold on July 16, 2014, 03:32:03 AM
A small thing:
It would be cool if the picture chosen for a medal would be changeable, as I'm stuck with a choice I'm no longer happy with.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Theodidactus on July 16, 2014, 04:44:29 PM
A small thing:
It would be cool if the picture chosen for a medal would be changeable, as I'm stuck with a choice I'm no longer happy with.

seconded
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: ardem on July 18, 2014, 12:09:37 AM
Easy way around this is go into medals jpg folder and rename the image then put another medal in it place with the jpg. It should change your images for that medal. the same think happens for planets, if you want to update all your planet images.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Whitecold on July 18, 2014, 08:33:02 AM
In the same line of thought, would it be possible to force civilian lines to retire their ships/build them/delete a line completely?
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Vandermeer on July 18, 2014, 08:47:14 AM
In the same line of thought, would it be possible to force civilian lines to retire their ships/build them/delete a line completely?
+1

My current game counts 39 shipping lines, all bankrupt due to my interference. In 6.3 the spawn of shipping lines was built up on the profit of former lines, so you could just sabotage the first one and then you would never see another again (unless you subside the first). Now they probably spawn by population count or income or something in that direction, leading to that you get one every 2-5 years.
..A little bothersome to weed them all out if they are not welcome.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Whitecold on July 21, 2014, 01:41:13 PM
Another suggestion from me, missile magazines and maintenance storage should be civilian parts. Right now colliers and supply ships are military classified. It makes little sense that carrying a stockpile of spare parts or missiles instead of fuel or minerals should cause your engines to fail, about the only part that can, which drains a lot of spare parts especially for the huge civilian engines.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: swarm_sadist on July 27, 2014, 10:59:47 AM
Another suggestion from me, missile magazines and maintenance storage should be civilian parts. Right now colliers and supply ships are military classified. It makes little sense that carrying a stockpile of spare parts or missiles instead of fuel or minerals should cause your engines to fail, about the only part that can, which drains a lot of spare parts especially for the huge civilian engines.
I completely agree with this.

To me, having a ship that is 5% military should be much easier to maintain than a ship that is 50% or 90% military. Adding 1 laser to a freighter during wartime should not cause the ship to catastrophically explode every so often due to engine failure.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: chrislocke2000 on July 28, 2014, 05:06:39 PM
I completely agree with this.

To me, having a ship that is 5% military should be much easier to maintain than a ship that is 50% or 90% military. Adding 1 laser to a freighter during wartime should not cause the ship to catastrophically explode every so often due to engine failure.

I agree its a pain and makes little sense although it maintains the consistency of civ ships somehow not needing any upkeep. Personally I'd like to see a middle ground of civilian versions of maintenance stores and magazines that don't trigger the military flag but only allow for loading and unloading at planets.

Alternative options might be:

- Civilian version of magazine applies a multiplier to reload rates, making them a poor choice for military ships but at the same time is more space efficient.

- All magazines, fuel tanks and maintenance to be given a transfer rate. Ie msp per minute / litres per minute with civilian versions having a decidedly worse rate. These rates would then be used to make such transfers take time rather than the instantaneous transfers done today.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: alex_brunius on July 28, 2014, 05:21:49 PM
- All magazines, fuel tanks and maintenance to be given a transfer rate. Ie msp per minute / litres per minute with civilian versions having a decidedly worse rate. These rates would then be used to make such transfers take time rather than the instantaneous transfers done today.

That´s something I would love to see.

I really like tension of carrier fighters reloading against the clock of approaching enemies, so having this apply to all refueling / resupplying / ammo transfer too would be extremely cool.

The only problem is having it scale with size in a way that makes sense. It should for example not take 3 min to refuel a 5,000 liter fighter fueltank but also not 48 hours to refuel a 50,000,000 liter mega carrier fueltank ( both using the same liter/min speed ).
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Whitecold on July 30, 2014, 12:39:00 AM
You could use a limit per tank/storage unit/magazine, with the limit also depends on the size of the installation. Transferring between ships, the lower total limit is used, for planets it is the maximum rate for the ship.
So if your carrier with 100kl/min is refueling a 2kl/min fighter, the cap is 2'000l, but 50 fighters can be refueled simultaneously. If your supertanker or a planet refuels the carrier, the cap is 100kl/min.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: alex_brunius on July 30, 2014, 06:50:27 AM
Another option would be that fuel tanks are turned into components designed just like magazines, with the option to spend more/less space on refueling mechanism ( also added to magazines as a separate factor ).

This would allow for more flexible sized fuel tanks and for you to design many small tanks with high transfer speed for vehicles that need to refuel quickly in parallel ( like a carrier refueling many small fighters ).
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Whitecold on July 31, 2014, 01:55:43 AM
Another suggestion from me, I'd like if in the design window only items were shown you have all the technologies to design. While experienced players probably know about spoiler tech, newcomers won't and it would make it possible to add new spoiler gimmicks without everyone immediately knowing something new is in.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Whitecold on July 31, 2014, 04:24:20 AM
Some suggestions for shipyards:
Retool costs should be based only on the cost of new components used, similar to refit costs, except there shouldn't be a size penalty, as you're building new ships. So if you have a new freighter design with just new engines, only the price of the engines is used as cost of the ship for calculating the retool costs.
It would also be good if the expansion could be done by continual expansion to a target size. So if I want to upgrade 7k yards to 15k I don't have to either keep an eye on the size to not end up with oversized yards or have to go through multiple steps to reach the desired size.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: swarm_sadist on August 04, 2014, 01:50:53 PM
Some suggestions for shipyards:
Retool costs should be based only on the cost of new components used, similar to refit costs, except there shouldn't be a size penalty, as you're building new ships. So if you have a new freighter design with just new engines, only the price of the engines is used as cost of the ship for calculating the retool costs.
It would also be good if the expansion could be done by continual expansion to a target size. So if I want to upgrade 7k yards to 15k I don't have to either keep an eye on the size to not end up with oversized yards or have to go through multiple steps to reach the desired size.

Expanding on this, have it so that ships can be retrofitted while still being built. Lots of battleship hulls in WW2 were converted on the fly into carriers midway through construction. If the ship is 1% built, then changing the ship class should be rather cheap and with very few limits in terms of size and cost; if the ship is 99% done, then there should be the same cost and penalties associated with normal retrofitting.

Also, a repair component for ships. A repair ship capable of repairs and overhauls following my fleet would be a welcome addition.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: IanD on August 06, 2014, 07:48:21 AM
Allow standard Freighters to transport troops and missiles etc but they can only load and unload from planets with a commercial spaceport. The amount unloaded or loaded per day could  be governed by the level of commercial spaceport.

Ian
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: waresky on August 06, 2014, 11:14:53 AM
Civilian Officer-potential Assignement windows : FILTERING on : UNASSIGNED Planets ONLY. (now are ALL Planets with or without mines,Colonyes)

The lists of Planets become very boring, and ive "only" 121 System in Map.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Whitecold on August 20, 2014, 02:05:08 PM
FAC's should be assignable to squadrons, to make management easier.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Vandermeer on August 20, 2014, 02:36:44 PM
FAC's should be assignable to squadrons, to make management easier.
If you are fit with the management tab however (task force window), you can have really easy control already, including such quick squadron launches. Slightly better than the fighter window even imo, because you do organization and orders in the same window, and can easily split and connect groups.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Whitecold on August 21, 2014, 12:08:53 AM
Thanks, never thought of the fleet management to handle carrier operations.
Two interface suggestions.
Could the classes in the design window and fleets in the fleet management be handled in a list instead of a drop-down box, so one can see them all at once? Also in the design window that the sorting option is remembered, right now it always jumps back.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: davidr on August 21, 2014, 01:27:35 AM
If survivors from a friendly NPR wreck are rescued they are classed as POW's by the game system even though they are from a friendly race and interrogation takes place once landed

My suggestion is that I should be able to return these survivors to their homeworld or another of their colonies to be able to earn "Brownie points" from the grateful NPR.They should not be tagged as POW's.

There is at present no mechanism to differentiate friendly survivors humanitarily rescued from Hostile POW's captured and interrogated.

DavidR
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Witty on August 21, 2014, 07:55:38 AM
A repost from my earlier topic, as starting a whole new thread was the wrong move on my part

This is just a small, minor suggestion.   Assuming that NPRs generate with the same government variety options as you do, showing us the government type of an NPR once your relations have become positive enough would be a nice addition RP wise.   Not just would it give a glimpse into the society of an NPR, it would also allow for a bit more tactical choice diplomacy wise.   Might not want to befriend the fascist NPR empire and their high xenophobia against everyone else.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Haji on August 22, 2014, 12:32:39 PM
It would be nice to be able to rename individual stars in case of a binary (or larger systems) stars.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Whitecold on August 23, 2014, 01:48:35 AM
Battle Management of anything larger than a few ships is currently a micromanagement nightmare.
In my opinion the biggest problem is that combat is managed by player ship. You pick a ships and decide what it fires on. However usually I don't care which one of my ship fires on what, the only thing that matters is how many missiles are assigned to each target, not the launch platform.
My proposal is the implementation of a 'Battle Management' screen/tab. Fire Controls can be set to Battle Management System similar to setting a PD mode; once set they are available.
Battle Management screen would show contacts only. Here a priority and a number of missiles can be assigned to each contact, all contacts, a specific class, and then the BMS does its thing, using the Fire Controls to fire the requested number of missiles in priority order at the targets.
Refinements would include to drop the priority of ships that get crippled, and options to spread fire or concentrate it among equal priority targets, and how the firing platform is selected (Distance, remaining ordnance, ...).
Multiple channels could be implemented to allow firing anti fighter missiles and heavy shipkillers at the same time without mixing up the targets.
The current combat management would still be available, for those cases where the player wants something very specific.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Whitecold on August 23, 2014, 03:57:59 AM
Another UI suggestion, an option to collapse contacts at the same spot. So instead of FAC 1-50 you get a single FAC (x50) The same could be done for wrecks and life pods, although these are more likely to be scattered.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: JacenHan on August 23, 2014, 06:46:53 PM
You can do that already, in the contacts tab. Button says something like "Hide Active IDs". I think it doesn't work on ships with active sensors on, though.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: letsdance on August 25, 2014, 06:58:53 PM
Quote from: alex_brunius link=topic=5896. msg62775#msg62775 date=1367588056
I would love to see an improvement for Population growth and spread mechanics.

Suggestion 1:
Add a new value called something like Natural Population Capacity for planets, based on how close they are to optimal race conditions and actual available area size of the body.  Geological activity and % water would subtract from the available area effecting this negatively.  This could also effect terraforming so that even if average temperature is 30 deg too high/low outside the acceptable interval there will still be a few areas (perhaps 2% max area) that can be settled with colony cost 0, so the actual colony cost is set to 0 but with a very low population capacity until average temperature is closer to race optimal.  Everything above the cap is treated as normal requiring infrastructure.

This value is supposed to model how many people can comfortably live on a body without major infrastructure investments (modelling "normal" buildings fairly close to ground level and fairly spread out with a good percentage left for farming and industry/jobs for everyone).

For Earth it would probably be a 2000-6000 million (we have infrastructure today and are not living sustainable with food for everyone), but for bodies not perfectly terraformed or smaller, for example Mars (0. 28 of earths area) or even smaller inhabitable moons it would be much lower.

If we say 4000 million for Earth it would be less then 1000 million for all Jovian moons as an example.

Growth % would be a function of how far from this cap you are.

Basically the mechanic means there is a cap on how big population can enjoy col cost 0 without infrastructure, but you can still always use infrastructure (at say cost one or two) to go above it if you want.

I'm not sure if odd gravity should influence how many that maximum can live on a body, perhaps high gravity should at least influence it negatively, what do you think?
i would like that too
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: letsdance on August 25, 2014, 07:08:47 PM
Quote from: chrislocke2000 link=topic=5896.    msg74999#msg74999 date=1406585199
- All magazines, fuel tanks and maintenance to be given a transfer rate.     Ie msp per minute / litres per minute with civilian versions having a decidedly worse rate.     These rates would then be used to make such transfers take time rather than the instantaneous transfers done today.

distinguish between self-made infrastructure and civilian.     civilians shouldn't let me ship away their infrastructure, even if the body is terraformed.

let me somehow move my capital to the top of the system locations available in the Task Groups window.     some sort of ordering would be nice here (alphabetical?)

let me give an order to a TG using "current location" as target location instead of picking one from the list.     for example this could be used if no location is selected.

automate geo surface surveys.     this would need 2 conditional orders:
1.     if current location has surface survey completed, pick up geo survey team
2.     if current ship has a geo survey team on board, move to next eligible location and drop it there

Quote from: metalax link=topic=5896.    msg64986#msg64986 date=1376323112
The ability to edit, delete or obsolete Hull types.     - Easily 80% of the list is populated by types that I will never use, and many of the ones that I do use I would prefer to be able to assign my own abbreviation.
+1.     that's really annoying.

i support the suggestions concerning missile and fighter fuel usage (from november and february).     also the missile fire control / ECCM balance could be improved somehow.

a conditional order "unload 90 % of fuel at X" (let me specify X).     "at nearest colony" is annoying because i never know where my fuel is.    it would also be nice to have a conditional order "unload 90 % of fuel to tankers in same fleet".

Quote from: Aloriel link=topic=5896.    msg65178#msg65178 date=1376776015
When an officer dies or retires, there needs to be a separate message category for those.
Presently, Officer Health and Officer Update categories are overflowing with messages.     To see when you need to replace an officer that has been killed, you have to read through a lot of messages.
+1

research scaling: researching 5 years with 1 lab could give more research points than researching 1 year with 5 labs.    this would give us more decisions.    it's also realistic, that the leader contributes a higher percentage to the result if the crew is smaller.    for example the research points generated could reduce by 1 % for each lab added after the first one (or let administration influence that too).
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: alex_brunius on August 27, 2014, 03:39:34 PM
Would be nice if the GEO and GRAV buttons on Task Groups (F12) first tab "Task Group Orders" was a toggle on-off instead of just add GEO/GRAV orders ( so you can click them again to remove the default order ).

Would be nice to be able to add/remove Civilian Mining Complexes to colonies with the SM Mods button in Economy (F2) window.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: hyramgraff on August 27, 2014, 04:32:39 PM
Quote from: alex_brunius link=topic=5896. msg75573#msg75573 date=1409171974
Would be nice if the GEO and GRAV buttons on Task Groups (F12) first tab "Task Group Orders" was a toggle on-off instead of just add GEO/GRAV orders ( so you can click them again to remove the default order ).

You can use the "No Defaults" button at the bottom of the window to clear the default order that the  geo and grav buttons add.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: alex_brunius on August 27, 2014, 05:08:27 PM
You can use the "No Defaults" button at the bottom of the window to clear the default order that the  geo and grav buttons add.
Thanks. SO many buttons  ;D
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: letsdance on August 27, 2014, 07:21:21 PM
in the Class Design window in the Design View tab, add an option "show all used components".     this shows all components currently used in the design, even if they are obsolete, when obsolete components are filtered out.    that would allow to update old designs to new technology, without having EVERYTHING obsolete in the list.

 or even better: allow us to remove components in the Component Summary tab.

group "shore leave completed" messages by task group.  a message that some or all (these 2 should be distinguished) ships in the TG have completed shore leave is sufficient.  separate entries for each ship are annoying.

[edit:] another idea to clean up the events log: for new contacts (also updates etc) make only one line per ship class for all ships that have the same stats. for example thermal signature will usually be the same for all of them, if it isn't: group them.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: letsdance on August 28, 2014, 04:35:00 PM
i finally have the best suggestion ever!! (altough i'm surprised i didn't see anything like this when i read old suggestions....) what i love most about Aurora is it's usability. there are so many useful buttons, tooltips etc. but the most annoying thing is the turn advancement.

therefore i suggest to make some kind of "autoturn when not interrupted by event". there are 2 ways to do it and i actually think both should be implemented.

1. next to autoturn make an "event interrupts" checkbox. now if i get any not-filtered event message (other than "last time increment") the autoturns stop and i can do something. this would allow us to use autoturns safely.

2. when i hit a time interval (lets say 5 days) but the game proceeds less than my chosen interval (example 1 day) without giving me a non-filtered event message, automatically pick an intervall that moves the time to where i wanted (4 more days in this example). if this new intervall gets interrupted again without giving me an event message, do the same again, until i either get an event message or the game arrives where i wanted it to.
there would have to be a maximum, like 10 100 intervalls (or let me choose one)

this would make the game alot more fun and, well i hesitate to say "fluent", but something like it. because the issue with smaller-than-planned time increments is not so much that less time has passed and i get a useless line in the event log. it's that i have to click and wait again. and again. and again. it should also be quite easy to do. it would also solve all those "help the game is advancing in 5 sec intervals but nothing happens" issues.

in any case - also in the existing autoturn option - there should be an event message when the last autoturn has finished.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Whitecold on September 03, 2014, 11:13:41 AM
The autofire checkbox should only cause automatic targeting, not completely destroying the FC setup, there is Auto FC for that if you should ever want that.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: davidr on September 11, 2014, 03:16:52 AM
I don't know if this has been suggested before , but could Steve please add "unload all ship components from cargo hold " ( or similar ) to a vessels action menu.

This is because that when a salvage vessel with numerous salvaged components on board has arrived at the player colony ;the player at present has to individually
click on each component to unload the item.If the salvage vessel has many cargo holds or is in a Task Group helped by cargo vessels then the number of salvaged  components can be many.

DavidR
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: IanD on September 11, 2014, 03:19:40 AM
I don't know if this has been suggested before , but could Steve please add "unload all ship components from cargo hold " ( or similar ) to a vessels action menu.

This is because that when a salvage vessel with numerous salvaged components on board has arrived at the player colony ;the player at present has to individually
click on each component to unload the item.If the salvage vessel has many cargo holds or is in a Task Group helped by cargo vessels then the number of salvaged  components can be many.

DavidR

Ian
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: alex_brunius on September 19, 2014, 11:42:20 AM
It would be cool if all beam weapons including railguns could be turreted.

Those that can not be turreted for balance reasons today could have the option to improve tracking speed removed, so you can turret them simply for RP ( coolness  ;D ) and for extra armor reasons.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Lossmar on September 20, 2014, 06:03:03 PM
My personal list of things that will never happen but if they did i would fap myself to death over awesomness of Aurora ( even more than i do now ).

1. Pirates - raiding civilian lines, small colonies, lone military ships etc. This would be awesome for some smaller ship to ship action without fighting full scale war.
2. Some sort of internal politics - different gov styles, ministers etc.
3. Rebelious colonies breaking off and declaring independence becoming NPR's. Officers/crew/ship loyalty depending on where they have been produced/trained/finished Military academy.
4. Some more depth in diplomacy.
5. Maybe some sort of "plot" about discovering Precursors origins, Invaders homeworld etc. ( Distant Worlds made me horny for something like that )
6. Some sort of generalization of npr vs npr combat so those dreaded "5 sec turns for a week" would be gone.
7. Some sort of search function to find particular asteroid/moon ( because its a giant pain in the ass )
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Haji on September 20, 2014, 08:32:24 PM
My personal list of things that will never happen but if they did i would fap myself to death over awesomness of Aurora ( even more than i do now ).

In my case it would be addition of "crazy science" which can be either researched or found. Some examples include:
1. Atmosphere remover, which creates a wormhole to "somewhere" and suck atmosphere out of the body allowing you to easily colonies and terraform Venusian planets (for balance reasons it would be one use item).
2. Gas giant ignitor, which can turn a gas giant or a brown dwarf into a miniature star, allowing you to colonize and terraform their moons that were far too cold previously (always a one use item).
3. Link destroyer/creator that would allow you to destroy an inconvenient jump connection (or to create a convenient one) without resorting to SMing.
4. Superscale habitats like McKendree cylinders, Bank's Orbitals or maybe small (3mln kilometers) ringworlds around those useless white dwarfs.
5. Matter transmuter that would would be deployed close to a star (in the same way fuel harvesters are deployed around gas giants) manufacturing TN elements for free.

Other things I'd also like to see, but are unlikely to be added are:
1. Ability to make a custom star system. Recently I play much less campaigns with all powers starting on Earth and more scenarios with several powers starting in different star systems and getting a reasonable one via random generation is a friggin' nightmare, especially when you want a somewhat specific system for RP purposes.
2. More ways to generate revenue, preferably though some kind of ship component (like solar power satellites).
3. Revamp of genetic engineering. It's a cool concept but through the implementation it's extremely rarely used. It might have been different if my games were actually long, but I rarely get far enough to be able to spend large amounts of research into genetic modifications which are pretty useless on low levels. And if I try to devote myself to the research due to RP reasons, the nation that does so falls heavily behind. So much wasted potential qq.
4. Revamp of underground infrastructure. Another cool concept that is simply impractical due to cost vs. reward ratio.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: swarm_sadist on September 21, 2014, 01:16:05 PM
In my case it would be addition of "crazy science" which can be either researched or found. Some examples include:
1. Atmosphere remover, which creates a wormhole to "somewhere" and suck atmosphere out of the body allowing you to easily colonies and terraform Venusian planets (for balance reasons it would be one use item).
2. Gas giant ignitor, which can turn a gas giant or a brown dwarf into a miniature star, allowing you to colonize and terraform their moons that were far too cold previously (always a one use item).
3. Link destroyer/creator that would allow you to destroy an inconvenient jump connection (or to create a convenient one) without resorting to SMing.
4. Superscale habitats like McKendree cylinders, Bank's Orbitals or maybe small (3mln kilometers) ringworlds around those useless white dwarfs.
5. Matter transmuter that would would be deployed close to a star (in the same way fuel harvesters are deployed around gas giants) manufacturing TN elements for free.
You've played Space Empires IV & V before haven't you?

Quote
2. More ways to generate revenue, preferably though some kind of ship component (like solar power satellites).
and Alpha Centauri too I see.

Quote
Other things I'd also like to see, but are unlikely to be added are:
1. Ability to make a custom star system. Recently I play much less campaigns with all powers starting on Earth and more scenarios with several powers starting in different star systems and getting a reasonable one via random generation is a friggin' nightmare, especially when you want a somewhat specific system for RP purposes.
This would of made my Freelancer based campaign so much easier to make. Even if you could just SM a star's stats and let it generate the system by itself. Or SM planetary bodies' mass, radius and moons.

Some things I would like to see:
1. Have surveys store the data within the computer banks of the ship instead of simply auto-downloading to the capital. Be able to transfer the data to other ships at close range (laser transmission); through the use of long range communication arrays; through messenger ships, drones, fighters or missiles, which are collected by another of your ships or colonies; or by landing inside a hanger of a mothership. The ability to intercept, jam or steal this information would be nice as well.

2. Have intelligence be split into:
SIGINT - Monitors information sent over radio waves and so forth (like geological survey data or position updates)
MASINT - Measurement and signature intelligence, to identify ship classes and abilities from thermal, EM and mass measurements.
HUMINT - Human intelligence using people in the field, whether that is: Covert Ops teams, Interrogations, interviews, espionage agents, etc.
TECHINT - Reverse engineers plans, ships and technology from salvage and acquired equipment.
OSINT - Free, open-sourced information, gathered from the enemies own transmissions (such as the internet).
GEOINT - Visual images of planets are used to determine population sizes, infrastructure, number of buildings, troop movement, etc.
BIOINT - The medical and biological information of a race, to help with interrogation, making bio-weapons or treating prisoners.
FININT - Information on wealth, taxes, expenses, corporation assets and stock dividends, foreign aid and foreign trade routes.
COUNTERINT - Monitors ways into the nation, as well as observes foreign diplomats and any high risk individuals.

When I choose to conduct espionage, I don't want to always send a 5 man team into enemy territory without any sort of objective besides "find stuff". It would be nice to gather information on neutral factions without having to resort to water boarding prisoners, or having special forces teams steal blueprints for (I would assume) publicly known colony ship classes.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Lossmar on September 21, 2014, 01:58:06 PM
Quote
In my case it would be addition of "crazy science" which can be either researched or found. Some examples include:

Noooooooooo. I hate things like that. Aurora is suppose to be hard Sf not another Star Trek with "magic".

To the list of my suggestions i would add :

Prolong treatment so my chars can live longer.

Merging with Nexus Jupiter Incident engine .... brb have to change my pants.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Haji on September 21, 2014, 03:14:16 PM
You've played Space Empires IV & V before haven't you?

Yes I did, but in this case this is more of recalling those things thanks to Orion's Arm 'pedia. As for solar power satellites go it's just frustrating for me to be unable to generate money for small, supposedly very technologically advanced nations. To be honest at this particular time the income is one of the very few things that scale with empire size and is so important that in this case bigger really does mean better. For comparison, mining can be vastly automated and instead of maintenance facilities you can have maintenance bases, both of which do not require population. Construction does, but I usually have more than enough workforce for construction even in the case of relatively small powers - but I easily run out of money. Ergo, some way of generating revenue, that is not random based (like civilian mining and shipping lines) would be great. And yes, there are financial centers, but building stuff in factories always takes more time than building them in shipyards and they require manpower.

Noooooooooo. I hate things like that. Aurora is suppose to be hard Sf not another Star Trek with "magic".

While I'm willing to agree to disagree on the implantation of weird science based on individual preferences, quite a bit of the ideas I gave are actually scientifically accurate.

Atmosphere remover is not, I'll admit.
Gas giant ignition can be done one of two ways. You can either drop a miniature black hole into it or you can manipulate gravity to begin fusion (large scale project of course, but from what I understand Aurora does feature artificial gravity so it should be possible).
Link creation/construction is up in the air, as those things don't really exist in RL. Still, we have ability to construct the gates in the game, so I think it's easy to imagine we can learn how to manipulate the jump points (at later technological stages).
McKendree ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McKendree_cylinder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McKendree_cylinder) ) cylinder is simply O'Niell cylinder scaled up to the maximum possible size carbon nanotubes can handle. Larger constructs may be possible with the use of TN elements.
We already have the ability to transmute elements, which is how we got some very heavy atomic particles like Ununoctium. Obviously, making TN elements, which does not behave according to known physics would be somewhat more difficult, but if they exist, then it should be possible to create them.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Paul M on September 24, 2014, 02:44:52 AM
A minor request...some human pictures for races.  I noticed a while back that there are none in the race portraits.

I would also suggest increasing the cost of buying civillian fuel.  It is a valuable service the shipping company does when it builds a harvester and I think the money paid for the fuel is far too little.

I would also add a check to the formation of a new shipping company.  If any of the existing companies have a share price below 2 then the new company does not form.  I have 3 or so shipping firms with 1-3 ships in them and I don't see how they can compete.  The biggest firm has the lions share of the business for whatever reason, and after that the next two oscillate back and forth who gets the work, but it leaves scarps for the small companies.

Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Erik Luken on September 24, 2014, 06:05:07 PM
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,7502.0

Make CMC chances based on mineral quantity/availability.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: alex_brunius on September 24, 2014, 06:37:30 PM
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,7502.0

Make CMC chances based on mineral quantity/availability.

Yes CMC is an area with lots of possible expansions. For example:

* Shuttle traffic back forth that needs protection to model personnel rotation / maintenance and expansion. Could be present to all colonies and your auto-mine ops too actually if performance allows.
* CMC Corporations where we can track profits and expansion in a way more like Shipping with lines.
* Dismantling/Redeployment of CMCs once minerals are depleted.
* Ability to Add/Remove CMCs in the "SM-Mods" interface
* A civilian market for mined TN minerals and refined fuel where you could buy sell surplus that goes into the sector with prices reacting to supply/demand.

General ( both civilian lines and CMC corporations ):
* Ability to nationalize a shipping line or CMC corporation/location taking full control of all their assets ( 1 CMC is converted to 10 automines ), would also be useful to get rid of unwanted shipping or mines. Should temporary reduce private investment chances in all areas or perhaps wealth/wealth&trade modifier?
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: alex_brunius on September 24, 2014, 08:14:22 PM
Add information on enemy missiles in the Ctrl+F5 Tactical Intel tab.

Like ships each observed missile type has it's own known fields like size, thermal, speed and warhead strength updated automatically as they are detected.

If you observe the launch ( close enough to track missile during launch ) the missile is also "added" to the launching ship intel, and this can also be done manually if you think you have "conclusive" evidence as to what platform launches missiles ( including possibility to add info on salvo size and estimated amount of reloads ).
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on September 25, 2014, 12:00:43 AM
Yes CMC is an area with lots of possible expansions. For example:

* Shuttle traffic back forth that needs protection to model personnel rotation / maintenance and expansion. Could be present to all colonies and your auto-mine ops too actually if performance allows.
* CMC Corporations where we can track profits and expansion in a way more like Shipping with lines.
* Dismantling/Redeployment of CMCs once minerals are depleted.
* Ability to Add/Remove CMCs in the "SM-Mods" interface
* A civilian market for mined TN minerals and refined fuel where you could buy sell surplus that goes into the sector with prices reacting to supply/demand.

General ( both civilian lines and CMC corporations ):
* Ability to nationalize a shipping line or CMC corporation/location taking full control of all their assets ( 1 CMC is converted to 10 automines ), would also be useful to get rid of unwanted shipping or mines. Should temporary reduce private investment chances in all areas or perhaps wealth/wealth&trade modifier?

I would also like it if the civilian industry used TN materials in the same way that government does, CMC would mitigate this draw on your own surplus. If you don't have enough TN materials for your civilians their industry and your taxes will suffer, perhaps even get the people upset.

Civilian and commercial ships should cost some modest number of wealth in maintenance. They will not require direct maintenance facilities as military ships, these are supplied by the civilian population and you would only pay a sum for each ship each year, say 1/20 of their build cost in wealth per year in maintenance.

I would like to see more integration or fleshed out internal politic of planet mechanics over all.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on September 25, 2014, 04:59:53 AM
I would like shields of ships to act more as damage reduction and only soak some damage from weapons and also increase their overall total strength.

I think shields would become more of a tactical tool that way and different weapons would impact shields in different ways. Let's say that the shield strength is increase with 50% and that it only soaks damage using the square root of its strength rounded up. Shields would also charge twice as fast as long as it is not burned out, once the shield is burned out there is a chance that the generators is damaged and it will take a certain amount of time before the shield can start charging again.

Strength 1 shield soak 1 damage and is burned out
Strength 2-4 shield soak 2 damage and is burned out after taking a total of 2-4 damage.
Strength 5-9 shield soak 3 damage and is burned out after taking a total of 5-9 damage.
Strength 10-16 shield soak 4 damage and is burned out after taking a total of 10-16 damage.
Strength 17-25 shield soak 5 damage and is burned out after taking a total of 16-25 damage.
Strength 26-36 shield soak 6 damage and is burned out after taking a total of 26-36 damage.
Strength 37-49 shield soak 7 damage and is burned out after taking a total of 37-49 damage.
etc...

You can then include say something called a Hardened Shield that actually ignore a certain damage based on the square root of their soaking capability... so... The hardened shield would need to be at least a strength 8 shield since the hardened part should be rounded down.

Soo...

Strength 8 hardened shield soak 2 damage and ignore 1 damage and can take 8 total damage before it is burned out.
Strength 16 hardened shield soak 4 damage and ignore 2 damage and can take 16 damage before it is burned out.
Strength 81 hardened shield soak 9 damage and ignore 3 damage and can take 81 damage before it is burned out.
etc...

An interesting side effect is that ships with strong hardened shield will need powerful weapons to damage them and can not be touched with weaker weapons such as gauss cannons, AMM missiles and the like. At least as long as their shield is up.

I guess it would need to be a balanced change... even if I like to use shields in its current state I think it has too little tactical applications.

Perhaps the hardened trait could be applied to ships armour as well using the same method. It ignore damage from weapons based on the square root of its number of layers, rounded down. Although I would perhaps make it say square root of armour layers -2 or something so it is...

4 layers = 1 damage ignored
6 layers = 2 damage ignored
11 layers = 3 damage ignored
18 layers = 4 damage ignored
etc..

Such armour/shields should have the same mass as normal except cost you perhaps 50-100% of the original amount of mineral to apply, at least. I also think that shock damage should be calculated from the initial damage not the reduced damage from hardened armour or shields.

For game balance you could also include Armour Penetration and Shield Penetration weapon traits. Each level would remove one point of the hardened effect of either armour or shield. This would give us even more options for interesting ship builds.

Microwave beams should completely ignore hardened shields and always drain the shields for two damage. So they should be an effective weapon to burn out shields and then apply disruptive effect to ships electronics.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Paul M on September 25, 2014, 06:20:17 AM
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,7502.0

Make CMC chances based on mineral quantity/availability.

Trying to think this through from a program perspective.  I'd suggest adding two variables per system "Primary CMC sites"  and "Secondary CMC sites" as the system is surveyed if a body falls into either catagory then add one to that catagory.  As CMCs are formed or if the player colonizes the body remove 1 from the appropriate values.  This may require flagging bodies as "Primary/Secondary CMC sites" in the database.  Then when a system gets a population of 10 million it should go into the queue for a CMC so long as one of the two values is >0.  Then when a system regardless of population no longer has any bodies suitable for CMCs it is removed from the queue.

You can still check in order of system population/body population but this way systems without bodies that a CMC can be placed on will not block the formation of CMCs in other systems.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: alex_brunius on September 25, 2014, 06:30:07 AM
Civilian and commercial ships should cost some modest number of wealth in maintenance. They will not require direct maintenance facilities as military ships, these are supplied by the civilian population and you would only pay a sum for each ship each year, say 1/20 of their build cost in wealth per year in maintenance.

Would it really add much value to have each civilian ship cost say 10 credits maintenance per trip and add +10 credits to their income to compensate?

IMO it's more interesting to instead balance their income ( in an abstracted way that includes maintenance costs ), so that it's based on scarcity of goods carried and distance traveled instead of a flat amount.

It would be very cool with a civilian market of TN materials and civilian shippings main job being to even out supply and demand between systems to try earn income off the delta price. It would remove alot of worries from the players micromanagement needs of bigger empires and ensure there are always some minerals available in all systems with colonies.

For that to happen the TN materials need to take up substantially more cargo space though.

The really cool effect is has is that suddenly it's not only a small extra wealth income you are guarding when the NPR raids your civilian shipping, it's the critical transport supplylines with mercassium and cordunium from the fringe mining colony that you today can run in a single fast transport run with heavy military escort to cover 10 years worth of all needs.

I would like to see more integration or fleshed out internal politic of planet mechanics over all.
+1

Things like unemployment % effects, more dynamic population movement and growth to satisfy employment needs, and long term unhappiness that can't easily be fixed by a few garrisons. So say the military units eventually also get unhappy and revolt or even declare independence in non core systems with low protection or military naval presence.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: sloanjh on September 25, 2014, 06:47:27 AM
Would it really add much value to have each civilian ship cost say 10 credits maintenance per trip and add +10 credits to their income to compensate?

A request:

It seems like this topic (CMC placement) has the potential for blowing up the suggestions thread (even more than it already is) with a lot of back and forth discussion.  Since we already have a side thread referenced, could people please consider putting discussion of it in that thread?  That way posts in this thread can call out the actual new suggestions that arise from the discussion.

Thanks,
John
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on September 25, 2014, 08:09:25 AM
Would it really add much value to have each civilian ship cost say 10 credits maintenance per trip and add +10 credits to their income to compensate?

This comment was probably clumsy made by me, I mainly meant Commercial ships constructed by the player, they should cost some wealth each month to maintain properly. This would represent repair, maintenance and crew wages. I simply don't like the fact that these ships are "Free" once you produced them, I feel like I'm cheating the system or something.  ;)
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Trueknight on September 27, 2014, 04:35:55 AM
Borrowing the idea from War in the Pacific training pool, it would be nice to give officers training duties in the Accademy: that would translate in better Crew Grade and some chanche of skill bonus to new officers, based on the skill of the trainer. I think it would add some realism to the officer pool.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Alfapiomega on September 29, 2014, 05:18:55 AM
Gas giant ignition can be done one of two ways. You can either drop a miniature black hole into it or you can manipulate gravity to begin fusion (large scale project of course, but from what I understand Aurora does feature artificial gravity so it should be possible).

You call "dropping a black hole" realistic? You just discarded all your suggestions as far as my support go.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Paul M on September 29, 2014, 06:26:19 AM
One thing that would be good to see is fighter construction using stored parts.  Right now I can scrap my pinnaces and get back the sensors and engines but I can't reuse them in building new pinnaces ever though both versions use the same engines and sensors.  So it seems pointless to salvage the engines from fighters if you can't reuse them as they just end up being scrapped a second time.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Haji on September 30, 2014, 09:09:46 AM
I'd love to seen an option to change racial wealth generation in game, not only during empire creation. I'm in the middle of creating an empire and I've just remember that it was supposed to have a weakness in the form of low per capita income, but I'll be damned if I delete it and make it again just to implement it.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: alex_brunius on September 30, 2014, 10:36:42 AM
I'd love to seen an option to change racial wealth generation in game, not only during empire creation. I'm in the middle of creating an empire and I've just remember that it was supposed to have a weakness in the form of low per capita income

Agreed. Would also be very useful for RP campaigns where you want one of your empires to gradual improve it's wealth over time.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on September 30, 2014, 11:05:41 AM
Agreed. Would also be very useful for RP campaigns where you want one of your empires to gradual improve it's wealth over time.

I couldn't agree more because the only solution right now is to remove population. In the real world you can have one faction easily be 50 or even 100 times the wealth per population over another. Certainly most would use more balanced approaches but a modern US versus a modern India in the game are quite imbalanced unless you like to give US a very advanced wealth tech advantage which seems weird given how much RP is needed for a significant difference.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: ExChairman on October 04, 2014, 04:47:39 AM
Could there be a note where the troops are stationed in the text file...
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: chrislocke2000 on October 09, 2014, 11:21:57 AM
In my current campaign I’ve noticed just how powerful and capable a fully trained crew can be. Their ability to react instantly to threats after years of time in space / on picket duty gives a massive advantage to defenders without reflecting how arduous such a constant vigil would actually be.

I’ve therefore been thinking about how a system of alert states could be introduced which, whilst adding a further layer of complexity, should bring more tactical / strategic decision making and enrich the Aurora gameplay experience.

Each vessel would have an alert state which can either be manually set and could also be changed through a conditional order. The alert state would affect the responsiveness of the crews, their morale and the maintenance of the vessel.

A broad structure (assuming a fully trained crew) for this would be:

All crew are at stations, ships weapons are charged / missiles loaded / shields able to be put up and down / sensors on or off instantly etc.
Crew would begin to suffer temporary morale reductions and impacts as with current system after a number of hours based on level of training and bonus. Hence after a while at Red alert crew will actually be slower to respond then if not at Red Alert. As with fighters this temporary morale reduction would be lost by periods of not being at red alert.

Crew at stations on shifts, weapons and defences are ready but not fully powered up.
There would be a time delay between bringing ship to full alert and being able to activate weapons etc based on crew grade etc. Whilst in Amber alert the base rate at which time in space is recorded is doubled. Hence crew at Amber alert for longer periods of time will need shore leave sooner to avoid morale loss.
To reflect that systems are powered up and ready failure rate may also be increased by 50% when checking maintenance requirements.

Crew on normal shifts, weapons and systems not being used are not charged / missiles loaded etc. Will take the crew longer to move to full alert and will also require usual load time for weapons systems to charge weapons / load tubes etc.

At green alert the ships accrues time in space and maintenance at normal rate.This would be the default setting

Systems are generally powered down to minimum; will take several hours for ship to react to orders.
At black alert the ships active sensors / shields / weapons / engines are offline and hence thermal output and EM output are set to minimal. Rate at which crew loose morale and maintenance failures occur reduce.
Could possibly reduce rate at which maintenance age increases as well.
Other thoughts on this are that ships may continue to provide protection to colonies and hence this setting may be used when deploying vessels on protection duties. Of course a complete opposite to this would be to require ships to move and patrol a system in much the same way they currently complete training in order for them to provide a contribution to the defensive value for a colony.

5)   Shore Leave:
Ship has a delay of possibly several days before it is able to react to orders. Maintenance usage again reduced against normal rates. Crew will regain morale etc as with current game mechanics.
(In this situation shore leave would need an order rather than just moving a ship to a planet with sufficient population).

6)   Mothball:
Ship has a delay of up to a month before responding to orders.
Failure rate significantly reduced / rate of maintenance age build up significantly reduced. Could also return of say 75% of the crew to training facilities to reflect just a skeleton crew on board.

Carriers and Fighters
I would love to see a similar system for the launch of fighters with the delay in launch based on the ships readiness level and a rate of fire for launches.

Thoughts (I accept that the names for the alert states used above are rubbish!)?
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: swarm_sadist on October 09, 2014, 05:49:52 PM

I think better names would be:
1. Battle Stations
3. Guarded
4. Peace

Just having 4 might be better, and have mothballing and shore leave be the same as transit delay (IE a status effect from an order).

As for fighters and bombers, having a separate alert system for individual squadrons could work. A modern destroyer can launch a light helicopter in 45 minutes when at minimum alert level.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: IanD on October 10, 2014, 02:59:01 AM
I think better names would be:
1. Battle Stations
3. Guarded
4. Peace

Just having 4 might be better, and have mothballing and shore leave be the same as transit delay (IE a status effect from an order).

As for fighters and bombers, having a separate alert system for individual squadrons could work. A modern destroyer can launch a light helicopter in 45 minutes when at minimum alert level.

Since Aurora takes its inspiration from the wet navy an alternative would be:
Action (or Battle) stations. Ship is closed up and ready for immediate action.
Defence stations where 50% of weapons are manned and crews are sleeping at their weapons, but ship is not closed up. This could be maintained for a considerable time in WW2, eg time for convoys to pass through threat areas where attack could be expected.
Cruising stations. Ship is on passage weapons at nominal readiness.
Then if ship is in orbit of a planet it could be at 1 to several hours notice to space, systems powered down as appropriate.

However none of this would affect automated weapons ie CIWS. This could open a whole new research path! :D

Ian
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Lossmar on October 10, 2014, 03:42:10 AM
Tactical net research path would be great.

Right now every ships acts like he is linked with others ( can use their sensor data, coordinates defensive fire etc. ).
Everyone who read Starfire knows how much of an advantage the tactical Net was for the Federation Navy in their war with Arachnids.

We could treat that net somewhat like jump drive - researching efficiency to include more ships, range so they do not have to travel packed in one group etc.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: ExChairman on October 25, 2014, 05:59:29 AM
Not sure if its been asked before, but it would bee nice to be able to see wich ship is firing certain missiles, or for that matter energy weapons.

Are under attack by an enemy with some 30 ships, his ASM ships went away in an one direction.

His AMM ship is in the middle of his main group, that went in the oposite direction...
But I cant se who is firing alot of AMMs, at 1.8 M/km...
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: ardem on October 28, 2014, 01:03:41 AM
Since Aurora takes its inspiration from the wet navy an alternative would be:
Action (or Battle) stations. Ship is closed up and ready for immediate action.
Defence stations where 50% of weapons are manned and crews are sleeping at their weapons, but ship is not closed up. This could be maintained for a considerable time in WW2, eg time for convoys to pass through threat areas where attack could be expected.
Cruising stations. Ship is on passage weapons at nominal readiness.
Then if ship is in orbit of a planet it could be at 1 to several hours notice to space, systems powered down as appropriate.

However none of this would affect automated weapons ie CIWS. This could open a whole new research path! :D

Ian

+1
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: alex_brunius on October 28, 2014, 02:02:28 PM
Not sure if its been asked before, but it would bee nice to be able to see wich ship is firing certain missiles, or for that matter energy weapons.

Are under attack by an enemy with some 30 ships, his ASM ships went away in an one direction.

His AMM ship is in the middle of his main group, that went in the oposite direction...
But I cant se who is firing alot of AMMs, at 1.8 M/km...

I recall this being mentioned before at least.

It would make sense that if you can track individual missiles at launch your sensor resolution would also allow you to see clearly what ship that launched them...
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Haji on October 29, 2014, 10:08:56 AM
Shipyard damage calculation needs adjustment. I'm attacking an outpost (both sides are player controlled) with a forty thousand tonne shipyard complex, numerous forty thousand tonne maintenance space stations (civilian unarmored constructs) and a couple of twenty thousand tonne warships. The shipyard took twice as many hits as the warships and five or six times as many hits as the space stations and is still standing. And since it has only a single slipway it's not even damaged in any way.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: swarm_sadist on October 29, 2014, 11:34:07 AM
Have jump drives allowed on ships too large for them, allowing for other ships to transit (that are the required size) but not the ship with the JD. I currently have a large military base protecting a jump point and I would like that station to open jump points for my destroyers. I would like to do this without designing a 20kT jump drive for that base.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: MarcAFK on October 30, 2014, 11:06:46 AM
Shipyard damage calculation needs adjustment. I'm attacking an outpost (both sides are player controlled) with a forty thousand tonne shipyard complex, numerous forty thousand tonne maintenance space stations (civilian unarmored constructs) and a couple of twenty thousand tonne warships. The shipyard took twice as many hits as the warships and five or six times as many hits as the space stations and is still standing. And since it has only a single slipway it's not even damaged in any way.
SHouldn't it have lost capacity s a result of the bombardment?
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Haji on October 30, 2014, 05:34:21 PM
If I remember damage calculations correctly, any hit has a chance of destroying a slipway and that's it. As the shipyard had a single slipway it was all or nothing - any random hit could either destroy it completely or do absolutely nothing.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: alex_brunius on October 31, 2014, 03:11:22 AM
Shipyard damage calculation needs adjustment. I'm attacking an outpost (both sides are player controlled) with a forty thousand tonne shipyard complex, numerous forty thousand tonne maintenance space stations (civilian unarmored constructs) and a couple of twenty thousand tonne warships. The shipyard took twice as many hits as the warships and five or six times as many hits as the space stations and is still standing. And since it has only a single slipway it's not even damaged in any way.

Here is the relevant wiki page:

http://aurorawiki.pentarch.org/index.php?title=Shipyards#Shipyards_in_Combat

Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Haji on October 31, 2014, 10:07:46 AM
The warheads were strength 5, the shipyard had a single slipway of twenty thousand tonnes of capacity, which translates to 2.5% chance of it being destroyed. I've launched 120-150 missiles (I'm not exactly sure because part of the first wave was intercepted, so the thirty two missiles in it may have not reached the yard; the other one hundred and twenty hit), so more than enough. That's why I'm saying the calculations need adjustment - it's far too random and can lead to shipyards being ridiculously resilient to damage.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: alex_brunius on October 31, 2014, 01:30:54 PM
I agree that it's random, but I actually like the aspect that you can't reliably destroy a huge shipyard with peashooter missiles.

If you want to reliably destroy it you will need a large warhead missile or torpedo developed for this purpose, and speed can be almost nothing so works for planet/base/satellite busting too. Quite cool IMO!  :)

But lets do the math for your specific case.

2.5% chance to destroy = 97.5% chance to not destroy.

0.975^120 = 4.8% chance the Shipyard was not destroyed.
0.975^150 = 2.2% chance the Shipyard was not destroyed.

The numbers do suggest you were just pretty unlucky ( between 1 in 20 to 1 in 50 unlucky ).
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Haji on October 31, 2014, 03:48:54 PM
I agree that it's random, but I actually like the aspect that you can't reliably destroy a huge shipyard with peashooter missiles.

But that's the thing - the yard wasn't all that big. I mean there were fifteen commercial stations of almost the same size and an armored cruiser half the size and all of those took much less hits than the yard to destroy. Heck, considering how the calculations are done the number of missiles necessary to destroy five space stations or two warships wasn't enough to even slow down the production! While I understand making normal damage calculations for a yard could be difficult, I think the probability should be based on the total amount of damage done in a 5 sec tic, rather than any specific missile (in which case the damage would be not 5 but 160 as I was using 32 missile salvos).
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: alex_brunius on October 31, 2014, 05:10:30 PM
How hard a shipyard is to destroy compared to the warships it can build can be extremely different depending on tech level and design of the warships.

If you make a warship of 20k ton with 50% tonnage as armor at medium tech levels you can get something like 2200 Armor strength (Laminate Composite Armor).

That warship could survive 300 of those strength 5 warheads fairly reliably. While the shipyard have 0.5% chance to survive the same barrage.

Statistically you could destroy at least 5 shipyards/slipways like that with all those missiles.

The real issue here IMO is that shipyard strength don't scale with tech level, while ships do. So at low tech levels shipyard feels very hard to destroy while at high tech levels they pop like popcorn.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: sloanjh on November 03, 2014, 06:47:41 AM
While I understand making normal damage calculations for a yard could be difficult, I think the probability should be based on the total amount of damage done in a 5 sec tic, rather than any specific missile (in which case the damage would be not 5 but 160 as I was using 32 missile salvos).

This is a good idea.  As you say, trying to track partially-damaged yards would be a nightmare for Steve to implement, but this would probably only be moderately difficult :)

That being said, have you seen a SY get destroyed?  This sounds like it could be a bug rather than luck....

John
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Haji on November 04, 2014, 03:56:59 PM
That being said, have you seen a SY get destroyed?

I've lost my patience and deleted it, so in this particular campaign I have yet to see a yard getting destroyed. I did destroy a lot of them in my previous one though, but I don't remember whether or not it was the same game version.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: namamono on November 18, 2014, 02:43:51 AM
I have made similar post at topic,7504. 0, but according to Erik's advice I am writing on this thread.

I am Namamono, a Japanese player of your great game, Aurora.

I am a big fan of Aurora 4X and posting replays on my blog.
I have received some good feedback from readers, and some seemed to be interested in Aurora.
But some of them seemed to be discouraged to play this great game because English seems to be a significant barrier for them.

So I would like to suggest addition of multilingual support.
I am ready and motivated to provide translation itself, but it must need program modification as Erik mentioned. . .
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Haji on November 23, 2014, 07:17:36 PM
I'm not sure whether this should be here or in bugs, but I think decision tree of the civilian shipping lines should be tweaked. I'm currently playing a very small nation (below 100 million people) that is supposed to rely on huge merchant marine (there are several other nations with whom I have open trade agreements so in theory it should work) but half of the ships that are being purchased by those shipping lines are colony ships - despite the fact that I'm moving no people whatsoever, despite having three colonized planets.

Overall those shipping lines existed for over twenty years and made the most money by moving passengers, much smaller amounts of money by moving cargo, very little money on fuel and no money whatsoever on moving colonists. Despite that almost no new passenger liners are being built, the number of fuel harvesters is somewhat large and the number of freighters and colony ships owned by them is pretty much the same. Which means the lines are buying ships they should know will provide no profit whatsoever, while ignoring the most profitable vessels.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Vandermeer on December 01, 2014, 06:12:14 AM
I think the "Unload All Installations" button for freighters should be renamed into simply "Unload All", as that is what it really does. It is quite misleading, and despite knowing this, I constantly make the mistake and issue Unload All Minerals and Unload Ship Component xyz sometimes, which leads to a stopping error and queue deletion when there was nothing to unload anymore.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: 83athom on December 01, 2014, 11:42:27 AM

The size would be something like this; ((NoMissiles*MSP[in HS])*0.2LauncherSize)+1. Example of 30 size3 missiles being; ((30*0.15)*(0.2*3)+1=3.7HS

Reloading from the module would be something like this; 60sec*NoMissiles*(Pods/Modules) with (pod/modules) being at minimum 1

The firing interval being; Standard Fire Rate at Reload Rate/Reload Rate. Example; a size3 with a reload rate of 5 would be 4 seconds (20sec/5)

Second time I had to do this because I accidentally exited the browser.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: GreatTuna on December 01, 2014, 12:56:26 PM
So, if I understand you correctly, what are you suggesting is like box launcher, but instead of one missile there will be internal magazine which this "pod launcher" reloads from...
What's the point of it? This kind of launcher will either almost completely replace conventional launchers (if it is better than them), or not get used at all (if it is worse than them), because this IS conventional launcher, only with internal magazine instead of external.

The bonus from "missile launcher turret" looks wrong, because to-hit chance is determined not by FC, not by launcher, but by missile itself.

Also, your suggested formula for size gives result which is even less than size of missiles themselves. (30*0.15 = 4.5 HS versus 3.7 HS).

----

Well, this idea could work, but in slightly another way.
For example:
Not reduced size, but FULL size of launcher.
Better firing rate than conventional launchers, but not the 1/ReloadRate; its too fast. Maybe 0.5x reload time?
Reloading from hangar\maint facilities only; reload rate is 60s*<total mass of missiles IN MSP>, so for example, 30 missiles of size 3 will take 90 minutes to get reloaded. Missiles are reloaded one by one OUTSIDE the ship, but INSIDE hangar\maint facility, so interrupting reload will just leave the magazines empty, and missiles are added to the ship which was performing reloads or, if there's no space for them, simply dropped out into space.
Missiles are stored inside internal magazine with fixed\researchable efficiency, but not more than 80% (20% of mass required for internal reloading system to keep firing rate).
And formula for mass is:
(<amount of missiles>*<size of missile in HS>)/<magazine efficiency>+<launcher size>
Example for 30 sz3 missiles:
(30*0.15)/0.8+3=8.625 HS

This is only an example, but in this way either pod launchers and conventional launchers will have their own purpose.
Pod launchers give an ability to quickly unload large amount of missiles at the cost of less missiles per ship compared to conventional launchers.
Conventional launchers stay the same.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: 83athom on December 01, 2014, 02:14:37 PM
Yah, that is more like what I meant to put. I was constantly trying to change it and forgetting to put it down in the other places I was talking about it ie. the fire rate (One place I put 1/Reload Rate and another I put Standard at reload rate/Reload rate). I was thinking of a missile system where you fire full broadsides then GTFO or be attached to every ship in the empire without needing to be designed as a missile ship (ships in the halo universe as an example, and kind of the reason I suggested this, for my next empire), and the pod system sounded like what I was thinking (rocket pods on modern helicopters and fighters). The size I think should be, as you said but a little modified, <amount of missile>*<missile size in HS>+(0.2<launcher size>/<magazine feed efficiency)+1. So our example 30 sz3 with 80% efficiency would be (30*.15)+(.6/.8 )+1=6.25HS, so for an AMM pod with 10 sz1 would be (10*.05)+(.6/.8 )+1=2.25HS. And the fire rate would still be <Standard Reload of X Efficiency>/<X Efficiency>. First example fires one every 4 sec (5 salvos every 4 increments), the second fires every 2 sec (5 salvos every 2 increments). I still stand by most of what I previously had though.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: GreatTuna on December 01, 2014, 02:50:01 PM
halo universe
Heh, I was expecting that.
Anyway, what you're suggesting is imbalanced, because it has better fire rate AND better missiles per HS count than basic launchers.
Just compare your "pod launcher" and conventional launcher (with external magazines, of course), 30 missiles, size 3.
Pod launcher:
ROF: 5 salvos in 4 increments
Size: (30*0.15)+(0.6\0.8)+1 = 6.25 HS
Conventional launcher:
ROF: 4 salvos in 4 increments
Size: (30*0.15)\0.99+3 = 7.55 HS

As you can see, the pod launchers are better in every aspect, meaning that the moment player gets pod launchers, he can completely forget about conventional launchers, and that's obviously not good.

I won't even ask on how "5 salvos in 4 increments" thing should look like.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: 83athom on December 01, 2014, 04:21:33 PM
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: 83athom on December 08, 2014, 08:15:51 AM
The ability to resize the windows with scrollbar support. This would help people with laptops (like me) a lot. I know in several posts by other people, some said there are some utilities you could install but are difficult to use/hack the laptop (ie resolution set where it cant be displayed). The last time (that I could find) that this was in the suggestions was in 2012 (and twice more in 2010), so I was also wondering if the game could not support that at that time, and if it can support it now.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Charlie Beeler on December 08, 2014, 10:17:51 AM
The ability to resize the windows with scrollbar support. This would help people with laptops (like me) a lot. I know in several posts by other people, some said there are some utilities you could install but are difficult to use/hack the laptop (ie resolution set where it cant be displayed). The last time (that I could find) that this was in the suggestions was in 2012 (and twice more in 2010), so I was also wondering if the game could not support that at that time, and if it can support it now.

The version of VB that Steve is using, IIRCVB 6.0, scalable screens/windows are not possible.  Steve has stated over the years that this is on his 'to do list', just not a priority.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Erik Luken on December 08, 2014, 10:25:37 AM
The ability to resize the windows with scrollbar support. This would help people with laptops (like me) a lot. I know in several posts by other people, some said there are some utilities you could install but are difficult to use/hack the laptop (ie resolution set where it cant be displayed). The last time (that I could find) that this was in the suggestions was in 2012 (and twice more in 2010), so I was also wondering if the game could not support that at that time, and if it can support it now.

Look into the Reduced Height Windows menu option.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: 83athom on December 08, 2014, 10:41:12 AM
Look into the Reduced Height Windows menu option.
Already doing that and I still am missing many buttons in TG orders, Intel and FR (SM Options), and System Display.
The version of VB that Steve is using, IIRCVB 6.0, scalable screens/windows are not possible.  Steve has stated over the years that this is on his 'to do list', just not a priority.
Ok, I did not know.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Vandermeer on December 08, 2014, 10:59:10 AM
@athom: Maybe you could try little tools like resize enablers. (I think there was one that was named directly ResizeEnabler) I don't have mine anymore since setting up the computer anew, but those do exactly what you would guess: You become able to resize any program window that normally disallows you to.
I have not tried it with Aurora yet, because my 1080p display works just fine with everything, but the tool has never failed me so far.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: MarcAFK on December 08, 2014, 11:12:30 AM
@athom: Maybe you could try little tools like resize enablers. (I think there was one that was named directly ResizeEnabler) I don't have mine anymore since setting up the computer anew, but those do exactly what you would guess: You become able to resize any program window that normally disallows you to.
I have not tried it with Aurora yet, because my 1080p display works just fine with everything, but the tool has never failed me so far.
Resize enable is the only option, but isn't perfect, it tends to scramble windows badly and often requires several attempts before you can reach something, I only just discovered the spacetime bubble option today due to it always being hidden. A good compromise would be for more options to be available through the menu bar.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: 83athom on December 08, 2014, 11:15:54 AM
@athom: Maybe you could try little tools like resize enablers. (I think there was one that was named directly ResizeEnabler) I don't have mine anymore since setting up the computer anew, but those do exactly what you would guess: You become able to resize any program window that normally disallows you to.
I have not tried it with Aurora yet, because my 1080p display works just fine with everything, but the tool has never failed me so far.
My original suggestion/question was about how to do it without the additional stuff. I guess I have to use it then. But my problem was that stuff didn't fit on screen at all (ie window was aligned to the very top where you cant move it higher and stuff was still cut off on the bottom), so will this ResizeEnable really work with my problem. Found out what you were talking about but hesitant to download.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Vandermeer on December 08, 2014, 01:06:12 PM
In that case it likely wont help you. It doesn't hurt in trying maybe, because this requires no install, but chances are low after what MarcAFK said.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: MarcAFK on December 08, 2014, 09:04:36 PM
In that case it likely wont help you. It doesn't hurt in trying maybe, because this requires no install, but chances are low after what MarcAFK said.
Honestly I can't play aurora on anything less than what my laptop has( I forget the specs, I think it's 1366 by 900) the easiest solution is to get your hands on a cheap hd monitor and plug that into your box, the extra screen helps immensely . However I've had at least one netbook that wouldn't allow even an external monitor to use higher resolution, you may need upgraded display drivers.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Father Tim on December 17, 2014, 12:38:19 PM
On the various Ship Details / Class Design views, 'Maint Life' is given in years and 'Intended Deployment Time' is given in months.  I'd prefer if both used the same increments.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Theodidactus on December 17, 2014, 04:34:46 PM
I've lost my patience and deleted it, so in this particular campaign I have yet to see a yard getting destroyed. I did destroy a lot of them in my previous one though, but I don't remember whether or not it was the same game version.

Having just conducted my first full-scale planetary assault, I second the suggestion that shipyards should be a bit more vulnerable. I dumped 40 size 20 warheads on one 18,000 ton shipyard, an amount that could easily crater a moon, or aerosolize a small battle line of starfrigates, and it had no in-game effect. Given that the primary mission objective was to destroy the shipyard, this was a little disappointing.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Rich.h on December 17, 2014, 05:07:47 PM
On the various Ship Details / Class Design views, 'Maint Life' is given in years and 'Intended Deployment Time' is given in months.  I'd prefer if both used the same increments.

The two are slightly different as deployment time refers to how long before you crew start to stink up the ship and demand time away with tribbles. Whereas the maintenance life is how long before the ships begins to literally fall apart.

I think the reason for them being given in different scales is due to some ships only being meant to have short service crews such as fighters and FAC.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: alex_brunius on December 18, 2014, 09:19:22 AM
Having just conducted my first full-scale planetary assault, I second the suggestion that shipyards should be a bit more vulnerable. I dumped 40 size 20 warheads on one 18,000 ton shipyard, an amount that could easily crater a moon, or aerosolize a small battle line of starfrigates, and it had no in-game effect. Given that the primary mission objective was to destroy the shipyard, this was a little disappointing.

That does indeed sound like a bug.

If I understand the wiki correctly each warhead should have 22.2% chance to destroy the shipyard, and the odds of the shipyard not being destroyed after 40 hits would be something silly like 0.004% even if each missile only had a damage 20 warhead.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Father Tim on December 19, 2014, 09:04:49 PM
The two are slightly different as deployment time refers to how long before you crew start to stink up the ship and demand time away with tribbles. Whereas the maintenance life is how long before the ships begins to literally fall apart.

I think the reason for them being given in different scales is due to some ships only being meant to have short service crews such as fighters and FAC.

I know the two refer to different things - I'd just prefer not to multiply (or divide) by 12 in my head to compare them when I'm designing a ship.  And the reason they're given in different scales is that they were implemented at different times, and each used the scale that seemed most sensible for that specific purpose.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: 83athom on December 19, 2014, 09:15:13 PM
I know the two refer to different things - I'd just prefer not to multiply (or divide) by 12 in my head to compare them when I'm designing a ship.  And the reason they're given in different scales is that they were implemented at different times, and each used the scale that seemed most sensible for that specific purpose.
Really? I thought it was because it was giving the time units in the relative usefulness ie deployment in months because of moral (shown as months deployed in the TG window) and maintenance life in years because of AFR (annual failure rate) compared to MSP (maintenance storage pionts). I actually find the different scales (years and months) more useful. But I might be just reading to much into it.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Lossmar on January 02, 2015, 09:39:38 AM
Automated construction factories and missile factories would be nice..
Some sort of self replicating factory to build a decent industrial base before planet gets terraformed for humans.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: MarcAFK on January 02, 2015, 10:18:35 AM
That's what construction engineers are for.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Lossmar on January 02, 2015, 11:20:12 AM
That's what construction engineers are for.

Combat engineers are completely different things.

But having building like that would be nice, even if its just for flavour.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: JacenHan on January 07, 2015, 12:47:36 AM
I'd like to suggest a log of diplomatic actions, such as marking when two empires became hostile to each other, or when one granted the other trade access, and etc. Along with that, an additional log identifying when one side destroyed a ship of the other would be nice as well, although I'm not sure how feasible it would be.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: swarm_sadist on January 09, 2015, 01:04:17 PM
Happy New Years,

Any chance of having exoplanets within the game?
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Vandermeer on January 09, 2015, 01:45:48 PM
That can be understood the wrong way...  You mean actual found exoplanets with their real names, like the original star names, right?
Should be difficult though, because most of them are located fairly distant, and Aurora seeks to map the closer stars first. I also fear that this could potentially kind of interfere with the adventure spirit if some systems (or at least some bodies in them) map out the same way every time.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: 83athom on January 09, 2015, 02:07:08 PM
Happy New Years,

Any chance of having exoplanets within the game?
Ummm, there already are, as in every planet generated in the game that are not in the Sol system. I think you might have been referring to rouge planets. That actually would be an interesting mechanic. Imagine entering a system and at the center, instead of a star, is only a single planet. The jump points for that could be interesting too, instead of having the multi-layer of search points, have only a sing layer to search.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: linkxsc on January 10, 2015, 09:36:11 PM
It would be nice if in the Intelligence window, for ships of other races, if you could just fill in the space of the "Class design summary" with information you've gathered about the ship (if you don't already ahve full info)

Like say, these 9200t "temple" craft have jump capability, shoot size 3 missiles in 9 missile volleys. And they have FC33-R20 missile fire control.
These are things that you can figure out by watching how enemy ships act, or by salvaging the craft. But you can't fill in and save this info for later.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: CharonJr on January 11, 2015, 05:24:09 AM
You can already make notes, just not in this window. There is a field for notes on the left side, somewhere below observed speed IIRC.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: 83athom on January 11, 2015, 08:45:24 AM
You can already make notes, just not in this window. There is a field for notes on the left side, somewhere below observed speed IIRC.
But he means in the big box underneath under Class Design Summary.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: linkxsc on January 11, 2015, 10:07:36 AM
You can already make notes, just not in this window. There is a field for notes on the left side, somewhere below observed speed IIRC.

Yes I see that box. But see its a bit too small when it comes down to it. It only allows a quick little line of text, which I usually devote to describing its weapon system.

Take these "Bec de corbin" 18000t ships this AI is throwing at me. Via watching them maneuver and salvaging a couple, heres what I've learned that the game isn't tracking for me in any way.

128m range active sensors, resolution 78. Game tells me this.
128m range missile FCS, resolution 78. Makes sense but game does not tell me. I only found this out via salvaging a wreck. Also their active grave sensor tech is above ours.

Ship can jump itself (however upon reverse engineering, their jump technology is about a generation behind ours)
Fires size 3 missiles in 24 shot volleys, that deal 4 damage when hitting and have a movement speed of 24000km/s. Missiles themselves appear to only have a range of ~90m.
Has 120Ep magneto plasma drives, at least 4 on board (has to be more though because the ship speed is ~4900km/s.)

(I'm still in the ion drive phase. So I've been taking all the engines I can and disassembling them. Seems like it could be fun to play a game where you only are able to build some extremely low tech stuff, the rest of your gear HAS to come from enemy shipwrecks. Wonder how the NPR generator would work with that? After all, you're empires technologies would still be fairly low, but you might have some rather powerful, yet hodgepodge ships, due to higher tech equipment.)

Other things that come to mind are another text box under "strategic intelligence" or "political relations" where you can just say stuff about the NPR itself. What date did they apparently open up trade relations with you? When is the last time you had military contact with them? (50-100 years later they might not be so upset anymore). What kind of tech have you observed of theirs? (I know that the race I'm fighting has nothing but low tech ground forces) Where have they been spotted operating, and where can it be assumed that they have been? Although this kinda mixes with JacenHan's suggestion
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Felius on January 21, 2015, 01:17:06 PM
Might or might not have been suggested before, but just a suggestion to make bookkeeping easier:

A "increase tonnage to [value]" option in shipyard activity, and maybe a "add x slipways" too. Essentially, just something so you can decide that if you want a commercial shipyard of for ships of 180000 tons, you can just tell the end result instead of having go there add an "add 10000 tons capacity" every few months, and without getting the ugly numbers that come with "continual capacity expansion".
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: MarcAFK on January 21, 2015, 04:44:08 PM
"Ugly numbers"
Trim them down with spacemaster.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Felius on January 23, 2015, 12:55:16 PM
"Ugly numbers"
Trim them down with spacemaster.
I was hoping to do so without it. Even if just for cosmetic, I try to avoid using the space master as much as possible.  :P

And on a couple suggestions, first some thoughts on crew, deployment time and required weight of crew quarters:

Could be a very nice to have a tech tree that would reduced the necessary weight per crew member. In universe, probably would be things like better recycling tech, improved entertainment tech, including things such as virtual and/or augmented reality. Hell, the latter could really make the space available look and effectively feel much bigger than it actually is, and that's just the least it could do. But, yes, in essence a minor tech tree (maybe under logistics?) that would allow more crew for more time under less space to some degree.

And secondly, something that have been probably suggested already, but nonetheless:

Allowing the player to set a design to use lower tech armor instead of the latest one, without requiring him to clone an earlier tech design and use it as a base. Sure, it would be of very limited use, but there are some issues where it'd be useful:
1. Raw Materials: Sometimes you have a massive stock of one mineral but another is rather scarce, but your current armor uses the latter instead of the one you have a lot of, like some previous tech level might.
2. Reducing the ability of the enemy to reverse engineer themselves to your tech level or "bluffing" them into thinking you have worse tech than you actually do. Sure, pretty much only for multi-player games unless you want to role play it with yourself and/or with a NPR AI who won't respond to it any differently, but still could be a nice possibility to have.
3. Weight padding for some designs, specifically jump tenders: Not a big issue,
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: swarm_sadist on January 23, 2015, 01:10:46 PM
Allowing the player to set a design to use lower tech armor instead of the latest one, without requiring him to clone an earlier tech design and use it as a base. Sure, it would be of very limited use, but there are some issues where it'd be useful.
+1
Even if it's just for flavouring, having cheap antiquated armour for your cargo ships would be nice.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: linkxsc on January 23, 2015, 02:21:48 PM
A tech that makes ships more efficient in maint, so eventually you dont need hundreds of maint facilities for moderately sized ships.

An extension of this would be a more efficient engineering space tech, affording more msp and AFR reduction in the same space.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: 83athom on January 23, 2015, 02:45:27 PM
A tech that makes ships more efficient in maint, so eventually you dont need hundreds of maint facilities for moderately sized ships.

An extension of this would be a more efficient engineering space tech, affording more msp and AFR reduction in the same space.
This would really just break the game. The maintenance is set up the way it is for a reason, balance. And hundreds actually give you diminishing returns, and I have even seen adding engineering decrease maintenance life.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Vandermeer on January 23, 2015, 11:37:39 PM
[...], and I have even seen adding engineering decrease maintenance life.
That is only due to a calculation bug though. If you add some more after that, it goes up again and reveals itself as better. Had ships with 40-60% engineering, and it was always an upgrade.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: linkxsc on January 25, 2015, 02:19:28 PM
Another minor suggestion

The ability to temporarily disable a listening post, or any planets dsts.

Ran into a problem in a game this morning where i dropped a couple dsts off in a few systems. And now i have a system with 1 npr hostile ship that keeps jumping in and out of system every 2 hours and stopping my time increments. Only reason hes getting picked up is because of the dsts, and my fleet is about 8 days away, slowly trawling towards the system to kill him and make the jumping stop.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: swarm_sadist on January 26, 2015, 12:16:57 PM
Another minor suggestion

The ability to temporarily disable a listening post, or any planets dsts.

Ran into a problem in a game this morning where i dropped a couple dsts off in a few systems. And now i have a system with 1 npr hostile ship that keeps jumping in and out of system every 2 hours and stopping my time increments. Only reason hes getting picked up is because of the dsts, and my fleet is about 8 days away, slowly trawling towards the system to kill him and make the jumping stop.

Just SM disable all sensors in the system in question. Turn them back on when your fleet gets close.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: 83athom on January 26, 2015, 02:11:15 PM
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: iceball3 on January 26, 2015, 02:27:02 PM
Last i checked, duranium and it's derivatives were supposed to be rad-proof, which would explain why populations can survive in planetside infrastructure during nuclear winter assuming said infrastructure doesnt get blown up.
Just as well, the armor absorbs pretty much all wavelengths of radiation (which is seen via use of laser weapons), and the only way to effectively contaminate the ship with radiation is to flood atmospherics with polonium, and even then it can be assumed that many ships have countermeasures against this, such as onboard space suits and airlocking.  Covering the outside of the ship in radioactive material isnt going to do anything, and covering the inside requires you to pretty much blow up said insides.  Including space suits, airlocks, etc.  Considering the ship avoids getting vented when a hole is punched in the armor, it would be rather resilient to contaminants.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: 83athom on January 26, 2015, 02:47:44 PM
Sorry, got a little rantty there. I just get ticked off at people who don't know what they are talking about but says things anyway like they are a master of that topic (which does include myself at times).
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Ixeziel on January 26, 2015, 02:53:20 PM
Don't know if this has been suggested before, but when creating new empires, either from a new game or SMing a new one in, to have a random option in the main empire theme and commander theme, so the game will pick a random empire and commander theme.  As I doubt most people use more than a few of themes.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: 83athom on January 26, 2015, 03:02:27 PM
Don't know if this has been suggested before, but when creating new empires, either from a new game or SMing a new one in, to have a random option in the main empire theme and commander theme, so the game will pick a random empire and commander theme.  As I doubt most people use more than a few of themes.
You could always just assign a theme/government to a number and use a random number generator and pick the corresponding theme/government with the number. Or draw a name out of the hat, figuratively.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: iceball3 on January 26, 2015, 05:42:50 PM
Sorry, got a little rantty there. I just get ticked off at people who don't know what they are talking about but says things anyway like they are a master of that topic (which does include myself at times).
Pfft.
First off, literally all ship armor is made of duranium. Serioudly, that is part of why ships take so much of the darn stuff. Lore-wise, duranium is a primary ingredient in all ship armors, so it is assumed the ceramic-composite is partially "composed" of duranium. It is that way both lore wise and mechanically. The interior of the ship would be also be made of the same stuff. If you don't believe me, look at how the ship cost changes as you add or remove armor.
Secondly, by the looks of things, the only harmful frequencies the hull doesn't seem to absorb is microwaves, as there are lasers with frequencies from infrared to upwards extreme gamma that are all soaked up by armor. Which would also be soaked up by interior airlocks and such.
So really, the only available frequency that could be proposed while maintaining internal consistency is microwaves, as all other frequencies is either a radio or needs to completely burn the hull off a ship before getting inside. The latter of, which we already have, lasers.
Breaking the laws of physics is fine, but the spirit pf sci-fi tends to be that physics behaves in a relatively self consistent manner in it's fictional context.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Vandermeer on January 26, 2015, 06:05:31 PM
Microwaves could be effective, because the sensors that they affect need to be placed on the outer hull.
..But on the general topic whether armor absorbs radiation enough to be save, look at this older topic: http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,7362.msg74861.html#msg74861 (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,7362.msg74861.html#msg74861)

Practically we found out that even just considerable steel armor would seal ships of of technically all harmful radiation. Lasers might be named 'emission of radiation', but really they only pierce the armor exactly because they get absorbed. So much to be exact, that they start to melt their way through, as iceball pointed out, so in theory the radiation shield hasn't failed, only the material's heat resistance.
Not even need for science-magic duranium here.

// Side information: Duranium armor is 100% on the first two tech levels (up to high density duranium armor), and then switches into composites towards neutronium armor in increments of 10%, until it reaches full neutronium armor on TL12. Can be seen in the armor's cost.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: linkxsc on January 26, 2015, 06:07:13 PM
^ you guys could think of it that there is a thin layer of armor in between each module on the ship (bulkheads that can be locked down in combat to keep damage from spreading/leaking of air)
That would also be radiation resistant. Heck its all already got to protect the crew from rampant amounts of cosmic radiation.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: 83athom on January 26, 2015, 06:24:57 PM
Pfft.
First off, literally all ship armor is made of duranium. Serioudly, that is part of why ships take so much of the darn stuff.
I beg to differ. While yes, duranium requirements do go up as you increase armor, only 2 of the armors are duranium (tech 2-3). Although you could argue 5 duranium armors (t2-t6), duranium is just used because there are no other resources to fill the needs (ie iron, carbon, crystal, steel, ect), all the armors are not duranium armors, although I do accept the values of duranium in the armor it isn't all duranium. 1) Coventional 2) Duranium 3) HDD 4) Composite 5) Ceramic Composite 6) Laminate Composite 7) Compressed Carbon 8 ) Biphase Carbide 9) Crystalline Composite 10) Superdense 11) Bonded Superdense 12) Coherent Superdense 13) Collapsium
Lore-wise, duranium is a primary ingredient in all ship armors, so it is assumed the ceramic-composite is partially "composed" of duranium. It is that way both lore wise and mechanically. The interior of the ship would be also be made of the same stuff. If you don't believe me, look at how the ship cost changes as you add or remove armor.

Ok, I'll look up "Aurora lore"...... nothing. how about just "lore"...... still nothing. I have no clue how you found the lore when there are literally no posts that even include the word "lore".
Secondly, by the looks of things, the only harmful frequencies the hull doesn't seem to absorb is microwaves, as there are lasers with frequencies from infrared to upwards extreme gamma that are all soaked up by armor. Which would also be soaked up by interior airlocks and such.
Oh My Goood...*sigh*, I just... *sigh*. Steve or Erik or someone who can do this, please add a facepalm emoticon for the forum.
So really, the only available frequency that could be proposed while maintaining internal consistency is microwaves, as all other frequencies is either a radio or needs to completely burn the hull off a ship before getting inside. The latter of, which we already have, lasers.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: swarm_sadist on January 26, 2015, 10:24:20 PM
Just two things wrong with what you said. First of all, you said there is no way radiation could effect the interior of a ship with duranium armor except if its already blown up, but the ships don't all have duranium armor. My ships (right now) are using composite ceramic armor, which isn't rad-proof last I checked, as well as if there are holes in the armor (from battle damages) the radiation can soak through anyway.
Anything is radiation proof when used in large enough quantities. Modern Battle Tanks are ceramic armour with DU inserts, which provides limited protection from gamma and x-rays. Most nuclear reactors use H2O or H2 to capture radiation. Six feet of deuterium will caption nearly 100% of the radiation emitted by submerged fuel rods. Any ship that travels in deep space would need to be protected from cosmic radiation, as well as any radiation from stars, black holes, supernovas, enemy weapons, planetary radiation, etc. It would be very odd to have a ship be unprotected against such a common danger.

Quote

Non-Ionized Radiation is everything from radio waves, infrared, light and up to certain UVs. Non-Ionized Radiation would damage something by transferring it's energy through radiation (as opposed to conduction or convection). Lasers are Non-Ionized and therefor will either burn the target or not burn the target.

Ionized Radiation is radiation which is powerful enough to damage individual strands of DNA by simply colliding with it, or damage chemical bonds in molecules. When people mention radiation, they usually think of Ionized Radiation. Each particle (either an alpha, beta or neutron) or wavelength (far UV, gamma, x-rays) is able to damage the target without needing to heat the target in any meaningful way.

While I would love radiation weapons, the fact is that any radiation weapon powerful enough to penetrate an armoured starship would also be able to destroy the ship through heat alone. Using against light skinned ships, fighters and missiles would be interesting, but would be a highly situational weapon to the extreme.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: sloanjh on January 27, 2015, 06:44:08 AM
Anything is radiation proof when used in large enough quantities....

Would you folks like me or one of the other moderators to split this discussion out into another thread?  It's probably best not to fill up the official suggestion thread with a big debate over a single suggestion, since Steve uses it as a "filing cabinet" to remember the suggestions people have made....

Thanks,
John
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: 83athom on January 27, 2015, 06:49:04 AM
Would you folks like me or one of the other moderators to split this discussion out into another thread?  It's probably best not to fill up the official suggestion thread with a big debate over a single suggestion, since Steve uses it as a "filing cabinet" to remember the suggestions people have made....

Thanks,
John
Sure, do it.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: iceball3 on January 27, 2015, 10:52:35 AM
I may suggest, perhaps a Size Reduction tech for plasma carronades, like lasers? Either that, or turretable carronades? Though, i am actually more interested on the implications that would have on balance if anyone could point it out.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: swarm_sadist on January 27, 2015, 05:11:24 PM
Would you folks like me or one of the other moderators to split this discussion out into another thread?  It's probably best not to fill up the official suggestion thread with a big debate over a single suggestion, since Steve uses it as a "filing cabinet" to remember the suggestions people have made....

Thanks,
John
I think I've said all I could say on this topic.

1. A proper 365 day calender year, as well as custom calender settings for different worlds and calenders. Ex: An islamic calender, a martian calender, etc.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Paul M on February 02, 2015, 03:28:37 AM
Could it be possible for a refit to reset the deployment clock?  It won't help me as I am still behind the times but I assume others are running into the annoyance of clicking to remove error messages every production turn.

Also could fighter construction re-use components?  So far as I can tell fighters never check if there is an existing stock of the systems in the fighter.

Also could the Govenors skill in Xenology modify the work of both the Xenoarch team or construction brigades work to recover things just like the other skill modify other activities?

Also it might be worth considering making the Brigade HQ cost less or be free with the development of the mobile infantry battalion.  It seems to be an important unit but one that doesn't really require TN technology.

Lastly could the rank for the CB be set to R2 not R1...it makes no sense for Colonels to be commanding a brigade.

Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: 83athom on February 02, 2015, 09:21:05 AM
Could it be possible for a refit to reset the deployment clock?  It won't help me as I am still behind the times but I assume others are running into the annoyance of clicking to remove error messages every production turn.
Just overhaul before refitting.
Also it might be worth considering making the Brigade HQ cost less or be free with the development of the mobile infantry battalion.  It seems to be an important unit but one that doesn't really require TN technology.
Why. That would just be too overpowered.
Lastly could the rank for the CB be set to R2 not R1...it makes no sense for Colonels to be commanding a brigade.
The different Empire Themes have different rankings. Another theme will most likely have it the way you want it.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: alex_brunius on February 02, 2015, 09:49:53 AM
Also it might be worth considering making the Brigade HQ cost less or be free with the development of the mobile infantry battalion.  It seems to be an important unit but one that doesn't really require TN technology.

Lastly could the rank for the CB be set to R2 not R1...it makes no sense for Colonels to be commanding a brigade.

For it to work the hierarchy also needs to understand that construction brigades are on the same level as brigade HQs, otherwise you would have a HQ brigade commanding 4 CBs anyways.

And I'm not sure that is actually desired since it would make it harder to move alot of CBs due to not fitting into the hierarchy.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Paul M on February 02, 2015, 10:16:09 AM
Quote
Could it be possible for a refit to reset the deployment clock?  It won't help me as I am still behind the times but I assume others are running into the annoyance of clicking to remove error messages every production turn.
Just overhaul before refitting.

Uhm, you don't understand the point I am making.  The deployment clock is not reset by anything other than sticking the ship in a hanger, even if the ship should not have a deployment time issue.  This results eventually in a bunch of annoying error messages every production cycle.

Quote
Also it might be worth considering making the Brigade HQ cost less or be free with the development of the mobile infantry battalion.  It seems to be an important unit but one that doesn't really require TN technology.
Why. That would just be too overpowered.

Because frankly it makes no sense to NOT have brigade HQs when I used to have division sized combat forces.  Making the HQ unit a seperate development project doesn't seem necessary.  5000 RPs is 2.5 years of research at the moment.  Why is it that expensive?  The HQ doesn't change if you have TN technology.  It is still a bunch of guys with radio's who support the Brigade CO.

Quote
Lastly could the rank for the CB be set to R2 not R1...it makes no sense for Colonels to be commanding a brigade.
The different Empire Themes have different rankings. Another theme will most likely have it the way you want it.

That does not solve the issue.  It is a brigade, it should be commanded by a officer of R2 and it should only be attachable to a division HQ, since it should have its own brigade HQ.

Quote
For it to work the hierarchy also needs to understand that construction brigades are on the same level as brigade HQs, otherwise you would have a HQ brigade commanding 4 CBs anyways.

And I'm not sure that is actually desired since it would make it harder to move alot of CBs due to not fitting into the hierarchy.

You can move them without being attached to a Brigade HQ...I have 3 of them right now and no brigade HQs.  They seem to be working as designed.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: 83athom on February 02, 2015, 11:37:26 AM
Uhm, you don't understand the point I am making.  The deployment clock is not reset by anything other than sticking the ship in a hanger, even if the ship should not have a deployment time issue.  This results eventually in a bunch of annoying error messages every production cycle.
Ohhhh, deployment time. That goes down gradually when you have it over a colony with what, 0.25 million population or at the same location as a ship/station with a recreational module. So still, an unnecessary change. Since you can only decrease the deployment time in a hangar, you might want to report that bug because you can reset the time in other ways (as stated before).
Because frankly it makes no sense to NOT have brigade HQs when I used to have division sized combat forces.  Making the HQ unit a seperate development project doesn't seem necessary.  5000 RPs is 2.5 years of research at the moment.  Why is it that expensive?  The HQ doesn't change if you have TN technology.  It is still a bunch of guys with radio's who support the Brigade CO.
Once again I ask Steve, Eric, or someone who can, add a facepalm emote for the forum. To Paul; Okay, I'll just have my commanders use WWII radios and paper maps to command my Power Armored Infantry fighting on an entire planet. Also just because it inconveniences you doesn't mean that it should be massively changed, I can research that in 2-3 months no problem with other research going on. Also, they are in full command vehicles/mobile bases going around the battlefield coordinating large numbers of people across an Entire Planet, doing that is expensive and difficult irl, and the game models that just fine.
That does not solve the issue.  It is a brigade, it should be commanded by a officer of R2 and it should only be attachable to a division HQ, since it should have its own brigade HQ.
Once again, different Empire Themes have different ranks in those positions. If I remember right, one of those themes has a General as the lowest rank. Like I said before, just use a different theme if you are unhappy with the one you are using.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Daishiknyte on February 03, 2015, 06:56:54 AM
Building off the earlier suggestion of "pod" launchers, I'd like to see an extension of box launchers into multi-missile parts, each launcher able to hold multiple missiles of the same type.

I'm still fresh out of cryo when it comes to Aurora so balancing opinions are welcome.   Because the system's volume for the launcher would be based off of the surface area required to fit all the missiles, I'm not sure how balancing its size should go.   It shouldn't be a heavy system, but it does require large surface volume.   Maybe an armor penalty?  Range penalty?

As for firing, the extended boxes should be one-shot-and-done systems, no picking and choosing how many to shoot; otherwise, what's the point of a standard launcher+magazine?

Potential uses:

* FAC and Small corvette launchers.   The extended box gives them a mission duration of 1 salvo per e-box, but it would allow the smaller ships to put noteworthy firepower down range.

* Missile pods.  I see a lot of people talking about jump point defense or tow-along defense options.   How about a relatively cheap, missile dumping "go away" sign?  Tractor along an extra triple handful of missiles to make that first salvo something special?  Defend your freighters with a surprising sucker punch? Defend your gate with enough kaboom to light up the night sky!  Of course. . . your first shot better work, because you don't get another.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: 83athom on February 03, 2015, 07:06:25 AM
I think I came up with a "balanced" size after we finished discussing about it. HS=0.2*(Size*(Number+1)), or was is HS=0.2((Size*Number)+1). I honestly can remember, and I think I might have had a better one in my head at one point. Besides that, I believe I've said everything I have to say on the topic, I still think its a good idea but people will still argue that "noooooo, it haz no purpossee, it two overpowerd" (no offense meant to the people who didn't think that the pod launcher was not a good idea).
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: iceball3 on February 03, 2015, 05:54:41 PM
Doesn't a balanced version of this already exist, in the form of missile stages?
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: 83athom on February 03, 2015, 09:02:58 PM
Doesn't a balanced version of this already exist, in the form of missile stages?
We are talking about the launchers themselves, not the missiles. Its an end-game launcher that behaves like a box launcher but stores and fires multiple missiles rapidly. It also has different reload mechanics than the other launchers. Go back and read where I first suggested this, or not since I thought we were done on this topic.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: gamedesign69 on February 05, 2015, 02:06:04 PM
Steve, would it be too much trouble to add ammonia-breathers to the game, similar to the way methane-breathers are implemented? For that matter, the possibility to generate new races based on all of the poisonous gasses, mostly for variety's sake, would be fantastic.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: papent on February 06, 2015, 06:50:50 AM
it would be amazing if all beam weapons were turret capable and or spinal mountable.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Vortex421 on February 06, 2015, 12:32:09 PM
An idea I had is for a fleet planner of sorts.  Let me elaborate:

Right now we can only set up order of battle stuff if ships have already been built.  But I would love to see a fleet planner where I can lay out a theoretical OOB before building the ships for it.  I'd especially love it if we could set up said theoretical OOB and send it to the shipyards and they begin building the ships for it.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: iceball3 on February 06, 2015, 01:21:48 PM
I threw some suggestions in for Pulsar 4x, but i think they would go great in aurora, if balanced out a bit. What are your thoughts, Steve and others?
You mean like in aurora?
Laser: Highest potential range, most dynamically changeable, turretablr. Piercing Profile. Spinally Mountable. Reduceable size.
Particle Beam: Highest damage at end of range, with no damage dropoff. Higher general range per HS excluding laser reductions. Piercing Profile.
Plasma Carronade: Deals explosive damage profile. Damage drops off extremely with range. Highest point blank damage.
Microwaves, mesons, Et cetera. So there are different beam types, but i wouldn't mind a few more if they could meaningfully have a reason to exist in the combat system.

I honestly would personally like if all the beams had more modifiers to how they preformed. A couple of ideas:

Meson Attenuation:
Five levels at most, each level increases meson damage by 1, decreases range to (1/level^1.5) it's previous range, with level 1 being 1 damage. If pulsar is using the current system of minimum range increments, having a range less than a minimum increment should render the meson innefective at the minimum range increment. Each level should require research to ascend.
Mesons with damage more than one have a random chance of having their damage partially absorbed by shielding, but will damage shields in the process and 1 damage will always leak through.

Plasma Carronade Encasement: Plasma Carronades with a metastable encasement to hold it stable briefly in flight.
Range increase in the same manner range tech affects lasers.
Will still have damage falloff proportional to original, so the initial damage falloff will be steep relative to the significantly weaker end of the range. This could lead to an interesting effect with rather long range carronades that hit 1-5 damage on the ending range of the weapon, sharply increasing at shorter range.
The main distinguishing part of this tech from other range techs is that it will also increase the size of the carronade a bit with each level.

Streaming particle beam: Particle beams which rake across the target as opposed to piercing. Each level halves the depth of a particle beam rounded up but widens it, to elaborate :
Code: [Select]
Intact ArmorOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOParticle Beam Str 6 No StreamingOOOXOOOOOOXOOOOOOXOOOOOOXOOOParticle Beam Str 6 Streaming 1OOXXOOOOOXXOOOOOXXOOOOOOOOOOParticle Beam Strength 6 Streaming 2OOXXXOOOOXXXOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAnd so forth. Streaming particle beams which miss should have a very slight chance of hitting their target anyway, doing small amounts of damage. The chance is slightly higher at higher streaming levels.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: linkxsc on February 07, 2015, 07:59:37 PM
Idea, a pair of mid-high level techs, that allow the creation and destruction of jump points in systems.

Mind you, these are balanced by being a huge module on a ship. And at the lower techs can take 50-100 years to destroy or create a jp, perhaps with the best level, you can pull it off in 10-20 years.

Dunno all the mechanics behind it. Perhaps make it such that when making a new jp, itll have a chance to open into a new system, or 1 thats already been generated.

This would be a tech for way later on, in the case of a game where you might literally run out of routes to travel. (I think you can sm change them now, but a legit tech to do it could be interesting.)
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Rich.h on February 08, 2015, 05:27:07 AM
Idea, a pair of mid-high level techs, that allow the creation and destruction of jump points in systems.

Mind you, these are balanced by being a huge module on a ship. And at the lower techs can take 50-100 years to destroy or create a jp, perhaps with the best level, you can pull it off in 10-20 years.

Dunno all the mechanics behind it. Perhaps make it such that when making a new jp, itll have a chance to open into a new system, or 1 thats already been generated.

This would be a tech for way later on, in the case of a game where you might literally run out of routes to travel. (I think you can sm change them now, but a legit tech to do it could be interesting.)

It is a nice idea but the time span is way off. At higher tech levels even if you do not have any NPR empires in play you are still likely to have a reasonably slow game due to the civilian ships etc. At 10-20 years of play it would probably take weeks or maybe months of real time play to get a new jp. As you said the sm can already do this and I think it is a better option since the NPR will likely not be able to take full advantage of them, so it is far better and easier to simply use an rp reason for sm'ing them into existence.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Witty on February 08, 2015, 10:56:41 PM
I'd love to see the return of some of the NPR interaction mentioned in this old rules thread
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,146.0.html (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,146.0.html)

I understand why Steve removed most of these at the time, but a lot of cool potential political depth was lost with the rewrite. Hell, I don't think client states are even possible in the current version.

Most players seem to agree that diplomacy is one of Aurora's weaker sides, but it wasn't always that way!  :)
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: sloanjh on February 09, 2015, 07:28:17 AM
I'd love to see the return of some of the NPR interaction mentioned in this old rules thread
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,146.0.html (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,146.0.html)

I understand why Steve removed most of these at the time, but a lot of cool potential political depth was lost with the rewrite. Hell, I don't think client states are even possible in the current version.

Most players seem to agree that diplomacy is one of Aurora's weaker sides, but it wasn't always that way!  :)

Wow - almost 10 years old.  I thought we'd had a forum crash where we lost everything since then, but I guess not.  Thanks to Erik for keeping the forum going for the last decade!!

John
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: iceball3 on February 18, 2015, 02:26:03 PM
Have a checkbox in the display tab on the System Map window called "Estimated movement on Time & Bearing" with a box below it that you type in a time in seconds. When enabled, will trace a line to the estimated position of a contact or task group on the system map on it's bearing, with the length being the time multiplied by the contact's/tg's speed.
This can make it significantly easier to tell where something is headed. Which leads to a next idea:
Commander Skill: Evasive manuevers. A ship can preform evasuve maneuvers, which will essentially slightly offset it's bearing randomly while still generally heading to it's target. This can heavily throw off interceptions if they have high initiative, make it harder to estimate the overall bearing of something early on it's path to a target, and perhaps have the added benefit of increasing it's effective "speed" but only for determining accuracy missile collisions and of weapons targetting the evading ship? A penalty of such would be the increased fuel use induced by the manuevers themself and perhaps a cut to all tracking platform speeds, turrets included.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: swarm_sadist on February 21, 2015, 08:57:49 AM
Some ideas for UI improvements.

1) It would be great if we could get a tab in the fire control panel to control movement, even if only to contacts, lifeboats and task groups. Attempting to set follow courses to contacts from the giant list in the TG control is a pain, considering the way the list is ordered.

2) Rearrange the contact list in FC to list the closest ships to the selected ship first.

3) Have the contacts in the FC display bearing from the selected ship, in addition to distance and tonnage.

4) Have a little box in the contact list on the left hand side, to easily distinguish armed ships from unarmed ships in the contact list.

5) Have a range with current fuel level in the TG window, right below the ETA and range to next order.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: InfinitySquared on February 21, 2015, 10:56:17 AM
Different icons for body types would be nice, as well as the ability to automatically follow a selected body/TG in motion.

An example color scheme would be:
Blue circle: planet/moon
Brown square: asteroid
Brown diamond: comet

And stuff like that, with potential color changing depending on status.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: MarcAFK on February 21, 2015, 02:31:00 PM
It would definitely help speed up combat for the fire control list to be ordered by distance.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Theodidactus on February 21, 2015, 05:10:48 PM
At 10-20 years of play it would probably take weeks or maybe months of real time play to get a new jp. A

my game is large and complex and I simulate a lot of political stuff behind the scenes but for some perspective it's taken me one real life year to play the last 2 decades of gametime.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: IanD on February 23, 2015, 08:47:44 AM
I think that Maintenance facilities are grossly overpriced and overmanned. Currently one maintenance facility in Aurora employs 50,000 workers and can maintain 200 tons of ship. NASA when operating the Space Shuttle (Mass 2030 tons) only employed approximately 58,000 people including contractors. I suggest allowing one maintenance facility be able to maintain 2000 tons and employ 5,000-10,000 workers. After all its meant to be an advanced maintenance facility, isn't it?

Ian
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: MarcAFK on February 23, 2015, 09:30:41 AM
The actual shuttle was only 100 tons, but I agree, maybe there could be a tech line that increases capability of maintenance facilities?
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: linkxsc on February 24, 2015, 01:17:34 AM
Make armored missiles more of a thing.
Looking at the game, every aspect of missile design can be compacted with higher tech, with the exception of armor.

Now this could be wrapped into an "ablative armor" tech. Or run off of the regular armor techs. Ofcourse it would suck to see like 50 armor missiles running around so it should perhaps be a little expensive to research, but it would be nice, from time to time to actually think about using large armored missiles (that dont need to be 50% armor by weight to even consider being effective)
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: IanD on February 24, 2015, 02:33:33 AM
The actual shuttle was only 100 tons, but I agree, maybe there could be a tech line that increases capability of maintenance facilities?

The mass was taken from Wiki and I believe included the boosters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle), so it was the launch mass.

Ian
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: alex_brunius on February 24, 2015, 06:01:06 AM
I think that Maintenance facilities are grossly overpriced and overmanned. Currently one maintenance facility in Aurora employs 50,000 workers and can maintain 200 tons of ship. NASA when operating the Space Shuttle (Mass 2030 tons) only employed approximately 58,000 people including contractors. I suggest allowing one maintenance facility be able to maintain 2000 tons and employ 5,000-10,000 workers. After all its meant to be an advanced maintenance facility, isn't it?

Ian

Remember that a single maintenance facility can handle unlimited amounts of ships though, so you can have 30 destroyers, 20 cruisers, 10 battleships and 10 carriers = 70 ships all served by the same maintenance facility. And these aurora military ships have alot more complex weapons systems then the shuttles have also. Look at military maintenance procedures compared to civilian ones and you will often find ships spending 10 maintenance hours for every active hour in flight, unlike civilian airplanes that would be the other way around ( 10 hours in flight for every hour on the maintenance floor ). The difference is again factor 100.

So all in all I think the numbers are "good enough".
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: xeryon on February 24, 2015, 07:55:22 AM
I agree that the current arrangement works well for game balance purposes.  That being said if you add up the numbers the requirements to support and maintain a single craft in Aurora are staggering.  A 10,000 ton warship requires 50 maintenance facilities each employing 50,000 workers for a total of 2500000 people, roughly, dedicated to servicing one single ship.  I know they can actually service an unlimited number of ships at those numbers but at a minimum 2.5M people are required to change the oil on one destroyer is kind of a funny thought.

Some additional realism in this category could be that shipyards are required for maintaining and overhauling ships instead of maintenance facilities.  That would fix the imbalance between 2.5M to service one and the same 2.5M to service 100.  Maintenance facilities could be shifted to producing maintenance supplies (seems like a no brainer).  Requiring a shipyard for maintenance also fixes a substantial gap in realism that I always struggled with as well.  When a maintenance facility is performing maintenance where is the maintenance taking place?  In orbit or at a landing site?  If it is in orbit why isn't the maintenance or overhaul taking place at a shipyard and if it's on the surface why are ships built in orbit?
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: alex_brunius on February 24, 2015, 08:41:29 AM
Some additional realism in this category could be that shipyards are required for maintaining and overhauling ships instead of maintenance facilities.  That would fix the imbalance between 2.5M to service one and the same 2.5M to service 100.

Or perhaps maintenance facilities could be handle much like shipyards instead? Where you need to specify both amount of slots and size of slots and the final number of workers needed is a multiplication of the two.

That way you the same workers could overhaul/maintain a few large ships, or many smaller ones.

Or make it dynamic so 100'000 ton capacity is needed to overhaul 10x 10k ton destroyers at the same time. ( Requiring a substantial reduction of price and worker needs for the maintenance facilities for balance ).

For code complexity reasons it's probably better to just allow any shipyard of sufficient size and type to handle the overhaul, and simplify maintenance by saying if the base has a shipyard large enough it can maintain the ships also.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: DFDelta on February 24, 2015, 06:57:37 PM
Replace the facilities with maintenance yards.
Similar stats to shipyards (capacity/slips) and are built and extended in the same way.
Able to serve as many ships simultaniously as they have slips and each one will have the full capacity overhauled each month (rounded up to the next production cycle). Would probably also need to be "normalized" towards one month that figures in production cycles somehow. I think the best solution would be a formula of "capacity / (30 days as seconds / cycle lenght as seconds)".

Example:
My yard has a 10.000 cap/month and 4 slips. Cycle lenght is 5 days.
This would mean it can service "10.000tons / (30days / 5days)" tons  of spaceship per cycle. That is 1.667tons per cycle for those who don't want to do math.
A 1.800 ton ship would therefore need 2 cycles to finish overhaul, (since it is rounded up to the next cycle) as would a 3.200 ton ship.
A 1.600 ton ship would be finished in a single cycle, since it is less then the capacity/cycle but gets rounded up to the next full cycle anyways.

Since it has 4 slips it can service 4 ships at the same time, and each one would be serviced with the full 1.667tons/cycle.

Sounds more convulted when written then it sounded in my head :/
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: xeryon on February 24, 2015, 08:30:12 PM
No matter what suggestion someone comes up with it has to be relatively simple to be viable.  Anything that adds to the micro-management without adding to gameplay is just more buttons to click without more fun.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: DIT_grue on February 24, 2015, 11:18:38 PM
Maintenance used to be a shipyard function (in fact, I think that was inherited from the way it works in StarFire?) and was changed to the current system because it was apparently a royal pain to manage.  So any suggestion to change it back is probably going to need to be very well thought-out and argued to have a real chance of persuading Steve.  Especially since I recall having seen pretty much identical suggestions brought up at least a couple of times.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: MarcAFK on February 25, 2015, 12:52:31 AM
What about just a simple limit to maintenance equalling your current shipyard size, leave everything else as is, but have a number showing total naval yard capacity, when a ship is overhauling subtract tonnage from that number.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: alex_brunius on February 25, 2015, 03:16:29 AM
No matter what suggestion someone comes up with it has to be relatively simple to be viable.  Anything that adds to the micro-management without adding to gameplay is just more buttons to click without more fun.

It can totally understand why it's not fun to fiddle with overhaul in yards manually if you field 20 destroyers that each have 1 year maintenance life. So what you would need is some way to overhaul en entire taskgroup with a single order and still have ships go in the appropriate shipyards...

Perhaps each ship ( or class of ships ) is assigned a "home" shipyard that will be used as a preference when doing overhaul? ( assuming there are free slipways ). And perhaps a game mechanic where if there are no free slipways ships are simply put in "waiting for free slipway to overhaul" mode until one is available?

That way we can still have simple one click overhaul of taskgroup like today, but with the added fun of having to make sure we have capacity and the added gameplay of modelling capacity in a much better way.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: swarm_sadist on March 06, 2015, 03:40:05 AM
Wouldn't it just be easier to simply have the maintenance facilities maintain a certain tonnage of ships based on their size?

EX:
20,000 tonnes of maintenance facilities could house 10 2000 tonne frigates, or 2 10,000 tonne cruisers

If it comes down to picking which ships to maintain, it could be as simple as a new order "base here", or just have the maintenance facilities rotate which ships they maintain every construction cycle.

I for one don't use maintenance due to the AI not using it, so my opinion should be taken with some table salt.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: iceball3 on March 07, 2015, 02:41:18 PM
May be rather complex, but how about fuzzier thermal detection? For instance, a task group appearing as one big thermal signature rather than many distinct ones at the far range of a sensor and perhaps even blurring together signatures of nearby ships at the furthest range? Nearby signatures would still be rather distinctive, but i am having fun imagining this if stars also maintained a signature as well.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: 83athom on March 10, 2015, 09:51:54 AM
May be rather complex, but how about fuzzier thermal detection? For instance, a task group appearing as one big thermal signature rather than many distinct ones at the far range of a sensor and perhaps even blurring together signatures of nearby ships at the furthest range? Nearby signatures would still be rather distinctive, but i am having fun imagining this if stars also maintained a signature as well.
I think this would be perfect, for lower tech. I think, yes the passives should be changed to be a little less clear, that it would be easy to distinguish between multiple small contacts and a big one at a medium/high tech level. It is an interesting thought for the mixing the signatures, and that could be put in as a TG order to fly in close formation to mix signatures (has some risk/adds additional hit chance on those ships (enemies firing at close formation ships/TG get a hit chance bonus)). And I think that another tech should be added with this, Sensor Clearness (name debatable) that does exactly what is says, a multiplier to how clear passive contact(s) are (affected by close formation).

A side note for another feature that would go well with this is possible contacts. Based on their speed and thermal (and EM if aplicable) it would display the most probable contact (based on percentage somehow). This would be with the aforementioned sensor clearness (to make the %) so it wouldn't be automatically based on number of similar designs (ie a 4000 km/s 4800 thermal beam ship, a 4000 km/s 4800 thermal missile ship, ect.) (also affected by close formation). Also changing he ship speed in the orders would change the percent as it gives a different speed and thermal than what the ship is capable of (but still a possibility as that ship is capable of that s/t because of speed scaling).
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: DIT_grue on March 11, 2015, 12:38:37 AM
Quote from: 83athom link=topic=5896. msg78777#msg78777 date=1425998000
I think you are confusing maintenance facilities with something else.  They don't "house" ships, that is hangars and that is exactly how those work already.  The facility is able to work on ships up to a size (not total size of all ships but the individual ship) and I think that is the most simple it can get.  And are you sure the AI don't build maintenance facilities, how else are they able to keep their military ships operational? Although you have been here a long time.
He's not confused, he's participating in an ongoing conversation about potential models for a change in how they function.  In fact, not only was that post essentially reiterating an earlier point, how did you miss the immediately preceding post he was responding to? Myself, I think I prefer the current system to any of the proposals I've seen; it seems to get the balance between micromanagement and interesting simulation about right.

As for fuzzy passive contacts, I agree that it would add an interesting bit of gameplay value, but suspect that it would be a pain in the neck to implement; probably more of a hassle than it would be worth.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Desdinova on March 17, 2015, 04:47:32 PM
1st post here but here goes

I'd like to be able to sort and select multiple officers for awarding medals.  For example I'd like to be able to award every ship commander in a system that's the site of a major battle the "Alpha Centauri Campaign Medal" or something.  I've been doing it just for flavor reasons to keep track of where people have served but it gets tedious when you have 100 junior officers in FACs and fighters to track down.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Paul M on March 20, 2015, 07:25:00 AM
Disable the formation of new shipping lines if any line has a share value <2.  Clearly if there is not enough work to keep all the current lines working there is no incentive for new lines to enter the market.

When a new line forms it should spend its starting money within 3 months on ships.  I've quite often seen the money sit there and get used for dividends with the result that the shipping line has but a single ship.

If a shipping line share drops too low (share value <1), it should sell its ships to an existing line and exit the market.

The price of fuel from civillian fuel harvesters should be increased a factor of 2 or 3 at a minimum.  Fuel is very valuable, the current cost is essentially 0.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Vortex421 on March 20, 2015, 09:39:56 AM
Sliding off the current discussions for a second, but something I noticed:

All Civilian Administrators (at game start, at least) start off at 21.  This should probably be randomized since these are effectively planetary leaders.  (In point of fact, how often do you see the leader of a nation become leader at the age of 21 if they are not in a monarchy?)
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: MarcAFK on March 24, 2015, 12:18:51 AM
Is it possible to add Precursor orbital habitats back in? I just ran across them in the spoiler forum and love the idea, maybe the bug that was plaguing them has already been solved?
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: sloanjh on March 24, 2015, 06:58:20 AM
Is it possible to add Precursor orbital habitats back in? I just ran across them in the spoiler forum and love the idea, maybe the bug that was plaguing them has already been solved?

I modified your post (above) to add a spoiler tag.  Please use spoiler tags when discussing spoiler stuff outside the spoiler board :)

Thanks,
John
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: MarcAFK on March 24, 2015, 08:17:02 AM
You're right, however it's hardly a spoiler if the feature doesn't actually exist :P
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: xeryon on March 24, 2015, 12:21:01 PM
Simple request: Turn off the auto-turn stops when civilian companies add mining complexes, build ships or scrap old ships.

Easily half of my Auto-turn stoppages are due to civilian interrupts.  Later in the game when it is unusual to have a 5 turn increment elapse without an action needing attention it is bothersome to keep clicking to continue when the only thing that happened is 'Due to age, Decimater Enterprises scrapped a Small F3 class Freighter'...
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: 83athom on March 24, 2015, 12:41:16 PM
The ability to create smaller than 1MSP ordinance. I really want to rock my MIRVs firing hails of 0.25MSP Micromissiles. The design I came up with seems to work well in theory, but I can't actually design and build them because of that limitation.
Code: [Select]
Missile Size: 0.25 MSP  (0.0125 HS)     Warhead: 1    Armour: 0     Manoeuvre Rating: 17Speed: 22400 km/s    Engine Endurance: 1 minutes   Range: 1.5m kmCost Per Missile: 0.3568Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 380.8%   3k km/s 119%   5k km/s 76.2%   10k km/s 38.1%Materials Required:    0.25x Tritanium   0.1068x Gallicite   Fuel x5Development Cost for Project: 36RPKeep in mind this is still only 1377 pounds (625 kg) (assuming the tons in this game is metric tons, 1400 pounds-long tons, 1200 pounds-short tons). This is about the size of the IRL Harpoon Missile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harpoon_%28missile%29) that was designed in the 60s.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Erik Luken on March 24, 2015, 12:50:19 PM
The ability to create smaller than 1MSP ordinance. I really want to rock my MIRVs firing hails of 0.25MSP Micromissiles. The design I came up with seems to work well in theory, but I can't actually design and build them because of that limitation.
Code: [Select]
Missile Size: 0.25 MSP  (0.0125 HS)     Warhead: 1    Armour: 0     Manoeuvre Rating: 17Speed: 22400 km/s    Engine Endurance: 1 minutes   Range: 1.5m kmCost Per Missile: 0.3568Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 380.8%   3k km/s 119%   5k km/s 76.2%   10k km/s 38.1%Materials Required:    0.25x Tritanium   0.1068x Gallicite   Fuel x5Development Cost for Project: 36RPKeep in mind this is still only 1377 pounds (625 kg) (assuming the tons in this game is metric tons, 1400 pounds-long tons, 1200 pounds-short tons). This is about the size of the IRL Harpoon Missile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harpoon_%28missile%29) that was designed in the 60s.

Smaller than 1 MSP missiles were removed a couple years ago due to some exploityness.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Prince of Space on March 31, 2015, 11:43:11 AM
A minor request:

Could we get thousands-separating commas in more places in the class design summary?

Currently there are commas in the tonnage, fuel capacity, and habitation capacity items, but they are missing in the crew, BP, TCS, cargo, cryogenic berths, and maintenance module items. Some places it might be more necessary than others, but currently, if I want to see if my maintenance base design has a capacity of 4000 or 40000 tons, I end up getting nose prints on my monitor.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: linkxsc on April 01, 2015, 11:55:34 AM
Allow gov't purchase of civilian infrastructure, just like you can buy minerals from civvy mines.

Reasons.
I like most people in a conventional start, will generally build up as much infrastructure as I can before Trans-Newtonian is researched. Then I'll shoot for starting a colony on the moon quickly. This does 2 things. 1 it bolsters your shipping lines. 2 it starts producing wealth from those trades. and 3 it starts to use up civilian produced infrastructure. Its not too difficult to end up with 5000-6000 infrastructure on the moon after 5 years, without any player input. Which this becomes fairly notable down the line when I finally terraform the moon, and often have 20-25k infrastructure there, to shift to mars, or any of Jupiter's moons, or anywhere else I may wish, because all that infrastructure is controllable by me.

Thing that becomes annoying though is the usual 5-10 years in the early game while researching an engine, cryogenic transport, and building a ship to start the colony on the moon. Thats easily 5000-10000 infrastructture that will never get used and goes to waste.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: MarcAFK on April 01, 2015, 09:19:48 PM
I'm suggesting a minor alteration of shipyard expansions, continuous expansion easily outpaces large chunk expansions making them basically pointless, I imagine it should be more efficient to retool at once, also remembering that there is a major downside which is you can't cancel mid expansion like you can with continuous.
I propose making larger expansions increasingly more efficient, not game breakingly so but enough to justify using them over continuous, also I suggest seriously nerfing the efficiency of continuous, maybe just a flat 30% reduction over a standard 1000 ton expansion, the larger chunks getting minor bonuses, maybe just 5% faster for each level? And maybe add some larger chunks too, 2-,000, 50,000, and 100,000 ton expansions.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Vandermeer on April 01, 2015, 10:18:50 PM
I'm suggesting a minor alteration of shipyard expansions, continuous expansion easily outpaces large chunk expansions making them basically pointless, I imagine it should be more efficient to retool at once, also remembering that there is a major downside which is you can't cancel mid expansion like you can with continuous.
I propose making larger expansions increasingly more efficient, not game breakingly so but enough to justify using them over continuous, also I suggest seriously nerfing the efficiency of continuous, maybe just a flat 30% reduction over a standard 1000 ton expansion, the larger chunks getting minor bonuses, maybe just 5% faster for each level? And maybe add some larger chunks too, 2-,000, 50,000, and 100,000 ton expansions.
It would be so much easier if instead of a continuous expansion there was just some window in which you could put the target mass that you want, where it would stop. Normally you know what size you want anyway, and with the current method you just check a couple of times around the time when you think it is where you wanted it. This would have the advantage... of having no advantages, because it could operate just like the normal 1k, 2k etc. expansion, where you see the resource cost and the time, but only get the result once it is really finished, so it would in no way be better. (with such a little entry box, the drop down menu could in theory even be scrapped, because everyone would be using target mass)
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: MarcAFK on April 01, 2015, 10:59:26 PM
That would be much easier, yeah.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: xeryon on April 02, 2015, 08:09:49 AM
I would also ease my OCD.  I never use continuous expansion as I cannot stand not having nice even numbers for my shipyard tonnages.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Vandermeer on April 02, 2015, 09:55:18 PM
I would also ease my OCD.  I never use continuous expansion as I cannot stand not having nice even numbers for my shipyard tonnages.
Hehe, that is why I avoided it for 4 long games too, even though I needed huge shipyards. I reached the point where seeing all that work coming up again had finally overpowered my reluctance to correct with SM. ...Though I still refuse to do it for yards up to 300kts. :)
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: 83athom on April 09, 2015, 10:15:27 AM
The ability to tow wrecks. I was actually kind of surprised that you could not tow them. Also a side request, I think that wrecks should changed in that they require to be found via sensors to see them. They don't have to be found with a special "wreckage scanner" but I think either the active or gravity sensors (or both) would work perfectly. However I don't think this should effect wrecks made from your own ships as they are confirmed wreckage at a confirmed location.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Erik Luken on April 09, 2015, 11:14:35 AM
The ability to tow wrecks. I was actually kind of surprised that you could not tow them. Also a side request, I think that wrecks should changed in that they require to be found via sensors to see them. They don't have to be found with a special "wreckage scanner" but I think either the active or gravity sensors (or both) would work perfectly. However I don't think this should effect wrecks made from your own ships as they are confirmed wreckage at a confirmed location.

Don't wrecks drift?
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: xeryon on April 09, 2015, 04:07:31 PM
I think wrecks via sensor used to be in the game and was removed long ago because it was tedious searching for them.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Theodidactus on April 26, 2015, 06:32:23 PM
is there a way to clear all orders for all civilian ships? If not there should be.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: boggo2300 on April 27, 2015, 04:32:06 PM
Don't wrecks drift?

Wasn't that the site of a famous battle?

makes me think of Michael Caine for some reason  ;)
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: swarm_sadist on April 27, 2015, 05:32:14 PM
is there a way to clear all orders for all civilian ships? If not there should be.
Shipping Line Information Screen, 5th tab from the right, "Clear Orders" in the top right of the screen. I believe it deletes anything they were holding though so I only use it when there is a bug.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Theodidactus on April 28, 2015, 08:52:07 PM
well yeah but unless I'm mistaken that clears the orders for one ship. I have like, 50 shipping lines each of which has hundreds of ships.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Barkhorn on April 28, 2015, 09:24:46 PM
I just had an epiphany for a super easy way to fix the issue of civilian shipping getting out of control.

Add a setting somewhere for "maximum number of civilian ships allowed per empire".  Let the player decide how many.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: papent on April 29, 2015, 11:44:12 AM
I just had an epiphany for a super easy way to fix the issue of civilian shipping getting out of control.

Add a setting somewhere for "maximum number of civilian ships allowed per empire".  Let the player decide how many.
I'll second that
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Theodidactus on April 29, 2015, 07:55:38 PM
thirded. That would fix soooo many problems.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: xeryon on April 30, 2015, 07:57:45 AM
Maybe even an SM option to close a shipping line.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: davidr on May 01, 2015, 06:19:30 AM
A plea to Steve for the next vesrion :-

Please can you add an option on starting a new game for a player to limit ( if required )  the number of Jump points which could be found in any one system. I have found instances of systems in close proximity each having up to 9 viable jump points which makes the task of sorting the Galactic Map nearly impossible. So lets have an option to adjust the maximum number which can exist in any one syatem.

DavidR
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: ChubbyPitbull on May 07, 2015, 07:48:11 AM
Posted this here (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=7790.0) originally, sloanjh let me know this thread is the correct place for suggestions!

Missile - Armor and HTK

One of the things that bothers me about Aurora (or maybe I'm just playing wrong), but it seems like the mechanics heavily favor small missiles, or for longer ranges a large missile with small sub-munitions. For example, a size 20 missile only takes 1 damage to kill, while 20 size 1 missiles will *each* take 1 damage to kill. Also, adding 1 armor point requires +1 to the missile size, and never really seems to be worth it. Size 1 missiles become less-effective size 2 missiles, and while this impact is lesser on larger missiles, the increased size means you're penalized in the form of amount of ordinance carried as well as firing rate.

Here were the suggestions I was thinking of:

1.) Missile Armor gained per 1 MSP scales with your Armor technology. Rather than always being 1 MSP for 1 Armor, Armor MSP usage scales, like how "Reactor Power per MSP" scales with your Reactor technology. Since (I believe) armor points need to stay as integers for use in the damage mechanics, when a user is designing a new missile they would specify the amount of armor they want, instead of the amount of MSP to use for armor. For example, with the most basic armor adding 1 armor point to the missile would take 1 MSP, but at higher tech level 1 armor point may only add 0.5 or .75 MSP.

2.) Missiles use a weaker version of the HTK system based on size. Similarly to how larger ships take more damage to kill if for no other reason than that they have more components to destroy, and gain armor columns based on size, missiles should also have a defensive benefit based on size beyond being more powerful. Rather than adding straight armor, I thought something like the HTK system for components would work well. As I understand HTK, when a component receives damage it has a (damage / HTK ) * 100% chance to be destroyed, and a (1 - (damage / HTK)) * 100% chance to take zero damage. I thought this would work well for missiles, with the only change being that if a missile is not destroyed after receiving damage, that missile loses the amount of damage dealt from it's HTK.

For Example:

Let's say at missile size 10+ a missile has 2 HTK. A size 10 missile with no other armor gets hit by a Gauss Turret for 1 damage. This 1 damage has a ( 1 / 2 ) * 100% = 50% chance to destroy the missile outright. In this case, the damage is superficial and the missile survives. However, the missile's HTK is lowered by 1, and now only has 1 HTK. The next 1 damage+ hit will destroy it.

In another example, let's say at size 30+  a missile has 4 HTK. A size 30 missile with 1 armor gets hit by a 10cm Laser turret for 3 damage. The armor takes 1 damage from the hit and his destroyed, with 2 damage continuing through to the missile itself. The 2 damage has a ( 2 / 4) * 100% = 50% chance to destroy the missile outright. Again, the damage hits non-critical parts of the missile and the missile survives. The missile's HTK is lowered by 2, and now only has 2 HTK and no armor. A 1 damage hit would now have a 50% chance to destroy the missile, or another 2+ damage would have a 100% chance.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: ChubbyPitbull on May 07, 2015, 07:50:28 AM
Posted this here (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=7794.0) originally.

Lifepod Rescuing with Multi-Ship Fleets

I'm currently wrapping up a long-running battle with multiple destroyed ships on both sides of the conflict. I have a fleet of four combat ships flying around right now rescuing friendly survivors and capturing prisoners. I've noticed that when a fleet of multiple ships is ordered to pick up multiple lifepods, the game's behavior seems to be that each time the same ship in the fleet is the one that is burdened with additional crew members, causing larger and more frequent failures of life support/crew quarters. I had two suggestions for this (the 2nd may already be in place):

1. Fleets rescuing lifepods spread the rescuing over all ships in the fleet. Either A) ships remember who rescued survivors last and take turns rescuing a life-pod in a round robin fashion, or B) All ships are involved in the collection of life pods, and survivors are spread over the entire fleet per life pod rescued. For example, if a fleet of 5 ships rescue a collection of lifepods containing 250 crew would each take 50 crewmembers. This could become more advanced with a calculation being performed such that ships taking a proportion of survivors based on available crew members (for example a carrier would take on more survivors than a small escort in the same fleet).

2. Empty Cryo berths within the fleet are filled before survivors start competing for normal crew quarters. For example, say I have a fleet of 10 ships, 5 of which are equipped with "Cryogenic Transport - Emergency"s. In the above example of rescuing lifepods containing 250 crew, instead of each ship getting 25 survivors, 50 survivors would be put into each of the emergency Cryo bays.

1)  an alternate/additional suggestion:  add a "balance crew within TG" button that behaves similarly to the one for fuel.

John
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: swarm_sadist on May 08, 2015, 08:06:16 PM
1. When running auto turns with the event window open, it should keep the tab on combat, or fire control, if it is selected, instead of going back to general tab.

2. Add time control into the event window, so that clicking next increment does not minimize the event window.

3. Add maximum increment, which will stop autoturns after a certain amount of time and/or increments.

4. When you select the tab in ship class windows (such as sort by bottons), it should save it when you close the window.

5. Fix Maximum Amount to Load; it doesn't work when using it for loads less than 1.
Title: GMO Mods
Post by: TheDeadlyShoe on May 27, 2015, 07:49:38 PM
Genetic Modification Rework Proposal
--------------------------------

Genetic Modifications are changed to work in a similar fashion to Jump Drives and Cloaking Devices.  The idea is that it is possible to create a far-adapted species without extensive basic research, but the actual research project will be very expensive and perhaps have some disadvantages.   You have an overall efficiency technology that acts like a multiplier for the whole field of Genetic Modification. Higher multipliers make it much easier to research difficult changes, as well as pushing the upper limits of what's possible.

To really give efficiency some kick, I would suggest that more expensive species are modified more slowly in GMFs.

Efficiency tech starts at 10 while multiplier tech starts at 1.0 (Normal). The first level of multiplier tech is 1.1.  1/X

Other suggestions
*Adding a "Genetic Medicine" tech line that gives bonuses to population growth.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: JacenHan on May 28, 2015, 04:15:25 PM
This idea was mentioned by someone in another thread, but I'll post here as well.

A beam weapon that would be created similar to a sensor or engine: having the complete range of sizes from the beginning, with increases in ability from tech.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Paul M on June 11, 2015, 01:57:45 AM
This is a suggestion on the formating of the text file for the log.  Could that be made up of "Tab-delimited" text.  This would enable the log file to be easily loaded into a spread sheet, sorted, and edited then saved again as a text file for further editoral work.

I find the sorting of the file, particularily when the statements are not written in order very time consuming.  Being able to sort the events by location would be useful if it isn't a lot of work to do.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: alex_brunius on June 12, 2015, 06:33:12 PM
Idea for more roleplay for less micromanagement:

Persisting names for each research project type ( today it's the same field for all research project types )

So the game will remember for example what my last Engine "Name" flavor prefix was despite me having designed lots of other techs in other areas in between.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: ExChairman on June 17, 2015, 01:00:12 AM
Presume it been asked before but here it is...

Be able to target specific types of ships in auto fire like warships, transports, cargo ships, etc.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: JacenHan on June 17, 2015, 01:26:42 AM
Related to the above suggestion, how about being able to detect certain types of components via active sensor, such as being able to detect if a ship has cargo holds or a terraforming module.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: ExChairman on July 03, 2015, 12:47:16 AM
Would be nice if loaded cargo carriers left some of their cargo around the wreck when destroyed...

Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: MarcAFK on July 03, 2015, 08:24:20 AM
I would love if infrastructure protected population from negative population growth, particularly or spacifically underground infrastructure, I'm thinking of using it basically as fallout shelters for keeping some of your population alive in the event of nuclear war, the speed at which a planet's population is reduced to nothing after a few missiles has always unsettled me, fallout from modern clean nuclear weapons isn't particularly bad even when it's global extinction level nuclear war. Obviously food/clean water shortage, disease, civil unrest etc would be what finishes everybody off, but It would be nice to be able to provide some insulation against this happening.
Also related to this perhaps the underground infrastructure could also protect a small amount of industry from destruction, perhaps some destroyed industry could be converted into conventional and then be mostly cushioned against destruction, continuous bombardment should eventually destroy the protected industry, population and the underground infrastructure itself, but it should be much harder to remove the last vestiges of civilization.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: IanD on July 09, 2015, 04:53:47 AM
While investigating a slowdown in Aurora 6.43 game I used the designer mode to investigate. Sure enough there were the precursors and an NPR fighting it out. No big surprise. However as the action wound up I watched the NPR use 955 ASMs and over 2100 AMMs to kill  a C10's worth of ground forces and a handful of DSTS and they were still launching when I gave up counting. Every ship in the NPR fleet appeared determined to fire every missile they had.

Is there any chance of Steve making the NPR response to a few ground forces a little more measured? Even get them to close the planet first then fire if no enemy ships are present, not stand off from several hundred million kilometres. NPR ground invasions would be even more welcome! He can do it for precursors!!

Ian
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: GreatTuna on July 09, 2015, 01:23:03 PM
While investigating a slowdown in Aurora 6.43 game I used the designer mode to investigate. Sure enough there were the precursors and an NPR fighting it out. No big surprise. However as the action wound up I watched the NPR use 955 ASMs and over 2100 AMMs to kill  a C10's worth of ground forces and a handful of DSTS and they were still launching when I gave up counting. Every ship in the NPR fleet appeared determined to fire every missile they had.

Is there any chance of Steve making the NPR response to a few ground forces a little more measured? Even get them to close the planet first then fire if no enemy ships are present, not stand off from several hundred million kilometres. NPR ground invasions would be even more welcome! He can do it for precursors!!

Ian

Ahem, I remember messing with the game too and I was kind of surprised when I looked at how the AI treats mines.

So, there was that one mine floating harmlessly around. An enemy fleet approached and... launched every single missile they had. At a single mine.
A screenshot follows.

Though I doubt this is the intended reaction. Maybe I should write about it in Bugs section as well.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: ExChairman on July 10, 2015, 01:59:45 AM
Would be nice to put factories on ship, a lot easier to move around than construction brigades...
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: IanD on July 10, 2015, 03:32:17 AM
When placing ground forces on a new colony I am acutely aware that without space-based assets they are very vulnerable to any passing marauder and there are never enough ships to garrison every new colony. I want a ground based system that is easily emplaced and can be moved when its been superseded at its original location to avoid spamming dozens of small PDCs.

I therefore propose that PDCs that can be pre-fabricated in 1 section (approximately 1350-1400 tons - Edit actually found that PDCs of at least 2150 tons can be pre-fabricated in 1 section) are not fixed for ever and can be moved.  I could then build the PDC below and include it as part of my early colony ground force.

Code: [Select]
Bofors AA Emplacement Mk III class Anti-Air Defence Installation    1 200 tons     53 Crew     904.6 BP      TCS 24  TH 0  EM 0Armour 16-10     Sensors 1/6     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 11Intended Deployment Time: 3 months    Spare Berths 2    Twin R15/C6 Meson Cannon Turret (1x2)    Range 150 000km     TS: 31600 km/s     Power 12-12     RM 15    ROF 5        1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1PDC Fire Control S02 112.5-40000 (1)    Max Range: 225 000 km   TS: 40000 km/s     96 91 87 82 78 73 69 64 60 56Inertial Confinement Fusion Reactor Technology PB-1 (2)     Total Power Output 12    Armour 0    Exp 5%Active Search Sensor MR1-R1 (1)     GPS 6     Range 1.1m km    MCR 118k km    Resolution 1This design is classed as a Planetary Defence Centre and can be pre-fabricated in 1 sections
Ian
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: NihilRex on July 27, 2015, 02:19:13 PM
Random new idea -

Civilian speed limits.

Race setting, civilian ships will set their speeds between the upper and lower bounds, and ships incapable of the lower bound will not be built.

Or, just an upper bound, so you cannot starve the civs completely.

Why?  Because it would lower the chance that ALL the civs colony ships would bumrush a new colony at the same time.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: MarcAFK on July 28, 2015, 01:50:47 AM
Comets need a checkbox for disabling their names, someone over in the bay12 forum was having trouble with them, probably a system spawned an ungodly number of comets.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Vandermeer on July 28, 2015, 08:33:15 AM
Couldn't he just turn the display off if he wants to see things below? And if he actually wants to see the comets, then how would hiding their names do any good ???
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: MarcAFK on July 28, 2015, 04:25:07 PM
... Maybe I missed something, I couldn't find a button to turn displaying comets off.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Vandermeer on July 28, 2015, 07:00:48 PM
Oh, right, there is none (https://www.partyvibe.org/forums/images/smilies/new/exclamation_mark.gif) I never had to use it and just assumed there was one just like with every other object. Well, in that case, there should be an option of course.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: swarm_sadist on August 05, 2015, 06:55:03 PM
1 - In the Intelligence:Strategic tab, there should be a list of known colonies, known PDCs (since they don't usually move) and known civilian mines.

2 - You should also be able to see a nation's colonies on the map, even if you don't have direct line of sight on the colony at the time. If you have seen a colony there once, it's doubtful it just got up and left when your sensor ship left range.

3 - PDCs should be separated in the tactical tab from other ships.

4 - There should be a way to declare what ship type you think an NPR ship is. You should also be able to organize the list based on that, or at least filter based on certain facts (such as size).

5 - The ability to obsolete NPR classes you no longer see.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: mtm84 on August 16, 2015, 02:34:13 PM
No idea if this has been suggested yet or not, but an option to randomize the names taken from the ship name list would be nice.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Steve Walmsley on August 16, 2015, 04:53:50 PM
1 - In the Intelligence:Strategic tab, there should be a list of known colonies, known PDCs (since they don't usually move) and known civilian mines.

2 - You should also be able to see a nation's colonies on the map, even if you don't have direct line of sight on the colony at the time. If you have seen a colony there once, it's doubtful it just got up and left when your sensor ship left range.

3 - PDCs should be separated in the tactical tab from other ships.

4 - There should be a way to declare what ship type you think an NPR ship is. You should also be able to organize the list based on that, or at least filter based on certain facts (such as size).

5 - The ability to obsolete NPR classes you no longer see.

Good ideas, although don't forget you can currently flag a system as having enemy colonies by setting the Controlling Race flag on the system map
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: swarm_sadist on August 16, 2015, 06:14:14 PM
Good ideas, although don't forget you can currently flag a system as having enemy colonies by setting the Controlling Race flag on the system map
True, but that doesn't help with remembering which planets have colonies on them. I have bombed empty planets from long range for the simple reason of not remembering which planet was which.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Barkhorn on August 17, 2015, 12:46:29 PM
No idea if this has been suggested yet or not, but an option to randomize the names taken from the ship name list would be nice.

Also an option to be able to go back through the list for class names.  Right now you can accidentally waste cool class names on civilian ships, because the class name list can only be traversed once.  So if you're playing as Germany, and you're designing a freighter, if Bismarck or Scharnhorst are up next in the list, you can't use them later on a warship, even if you did not actually use it on the freighter.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: davidr on August 20, 2015, 03:09:22 AM
Steve,

Is there any chance of the Aurora programming system allowing for survivors from a Lifepod being returned to their Home System if they belong to a friendly or allied NPR. At present any survivors rescued by the Human player are all subjected to interrogation and then classed as POW's.New technology could still be obtained but given in thanks by the friendly NPR rather than through interrogation. Those NPR's classed as enemies could still be interrogated and imprisoned as POW's.

DavidR
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Darkminion on August 21, 2015, 01:29:20 PM
I have some suggestions based off of some things that happened in my current game.

1.  I would recommend that neutral NPRs completely avoid capitol systems or have a check before firing on mixed hostile/neutral contacts.  I had an incident in which an NPR fleet showing off in Sol detected and nuked a recently unearthed precursor robot defender battalions on Venus destroying assets and setting them to hostile.  This kicked off a decades long war which is still being fought.

2.  Would it be possible to have NPRs take into consideration system security or some other enemy force size value before sending ships through a JP? Aforementioned alien race has been kind enough to trickle ships into my JP pickets.  Its usually four or less ships at a time.  There was one instance in which they sent a large fleet of 60 ships.  This has not only skewed tech advancement (It allowed me to go from ion engines to Inertial Confinement Fusion with a very short time span, 4-6 years) and has given me critical resources salvaged from the wrecks as well.  While I welcome the tech and minerals it feels like the game is throwing a curve onto the difficulty.  While it is helping out it feels kinda odd that resources would be simply wasted this way.

3.  NPR AMM point defense ships will attempt to launch AMMs even if their magazines are empty/destroyed.  This results in nothing but 5 second increments until the detected missiles reach their target or are destroyed.  While one can set auto turns and wait while time is stepped I thought I would mention it due to discussions about game slowdown.

4.  Would it be possible to add an option to ban JPs or systems like we have for system bodies? It would be nice to be able to have a little more control over civilian shipping and prevent a majority of them from going into an active combat zone just to drop of colonists/non-TN goods that will die/be destroyed with their ships anyway.  This is even more of a concern with plans to remove the range limitation in the upcoming 6. 50 version of Aurora.

Thank you
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Erik Luken on August 21, 2015, 02:22:06 PM
4.  Would it be possible to add an option to ban JPs or systems like we have for system bodies? It would be nice to be able to have a little more control over civilian shipping and prevent a majority of them from going into an active combat zone just to drop of colonists/non-TN goods that will die/be destroyed with their ships anyway.  This is even more of a concern with plans to remove the range limitation in the upcoming 6. 50 version of Aurora.

Thank you

There is a rating for the systems which includes hostile aliens/combat in them. The higher the number, the less likely the civ is going to go into that system.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Darkminion on August 21, 2015, 03:26:11 PM
Quote from: Erik Luken link=topic=5896. msg80284#msg80284 date=1440184926
There is a rating for the systems which includes hostile aliens/combat in them.  The higher the number, the less likely the civ is going to go into that system.

I guess I have been dealing with some bull headed civilians then! Still being able to say "thar be monsters" would be helpful.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Erik Luken on August 21, 2015, 04:00:44 PM

I guess I have been dealing with some bull headed civilians then! Still being able to say "thar be monsters" would be helpful.

You should also be able to mark it as verboten already. Check the F9 screen.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Ostia on August 23, 2015, 08:47:15 AM
Request:

Can the Build and Load Time Box moved to the right side of the Class Design Screen? They disappear when using Reduced Height Windows., which makes Freighter/Troop  Design a bit hard.
The same goes for the Show Civilian Designs Box.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: canshow on August 23, 2015, 09:25:46 PM
Does an option to turn off/auto-exit all error messages sound feasible?
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: letsdance on August 29, 2015, 12:13:14 PM
This results in nothing but 5 second increments until the detected missiles reach their target or are destroyed.
some sort of "auto continue to next player event or chosen increment" would also help with issues like these.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: MarcAFK on August 30, 2015, 10:51:12 PM
Considering the vast mineral logistical problem steve may run into during the mammoth colonisation campaign I'm wondering if a mineral trading system might be a good idea. Sure yo can easily space master minerals around, but how about something like the civilian contracts system, you set up a trade at a certain location to sell a specified quantity of minerals for a certain price. Then if there's an existing contract somewhere in any empire to buy that mineral fir that price or higher then civilian freighters will pick up a load of minerals, deliver it to the specified colony and payment is automatically transferred.
This would allow empires to sell off resources they have in abundance and buy in those they don't have easy access to. Of course there significant work needed to make NPR AIs use the system properly, but for now I'm sure it could easily be tied into the normal civilian freight network without too much hassle ( maybe forget the complicated pricing system and just use a placeholder, sell one mineral for one dollar, buy 1 for 2).
Eventually this could tie into civilian mining and shipping operations, mining operations actually selling their resources onto the market, shipping companies needing to buy from the market fir shipbuilding( if all minerals aren't available on the market they could pay a premium for missing minerals to be 'found' ie just be generated). Large civilian populations should generate demand for TNEs also which should be traded accordingly.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Paul M on August 31, 2015, 03:03:19 AM
I'd like to seriously suggest a revamp on how the civillians work from a programming perspective.

Rather than have each ship look for something, which is apparently cause massive time slow downs the more efficient way is to determine which transfers exist in terms of lots.

Once the lots have been determined (as in  5 lots of 10 infrastructure from Earth to Ganymede) then simply cycle through the shipping lines that have ships at the place where the lot is to pick it up.  If a lot exists and no ships are there then randomly select a shipping line to go get it.

I'm sure a programmer who knows whatever language the program is coded in could suggest more efficieny improvements.  But the essence is that with a few flags you can reduce the number of checks significantly.  If there is nothing to be moved then the whole step gets skipped.  Perhaps I'm naive but working out the lots to be moved has to be faster than checking each and every ship to see what it can move.  If there are no colonists to move you skip 25% or more of the ships for example.  And the process ends when the number of lots un-allocated is 0.  So the check time should dratically speed up.

This should reduce the slow down due to the number of civillian ships as the only thing that will matter is the number of lots to be moved not the hulls looking for a lot to move.

Also this should happen with government contracts.  I often see more ships heading for the job then are needed.  That means time was wasted in assigning ships that will do nothing for the task.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: amimai on August 31, 2015, 05:55:21 PM
Since in the next patch were getting a whole bunch of simplifications to speed up AI i was wondering would it be possible to implement off screen rules for AI that are outside explored space?

Simply put if the ai are doing something outside explored space even if its combat it does not cause interrupts nad the game keeps running sim without stopping time (while running AI battle off screen)

or is this impossible or somesuch?
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Steve Walmsley on August 31, 2015, 07:31:12 PM

This should reduce the slow down due to the number of civillian ships as the only thing that will matter is the number of lots to be moved not the hulls looking for a lot to move.

I've never really seen the slowdowns with civilian traffic. I don't know if it is the new pathfinding code but I am running fourteen player races at the moment without any problems.

Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Steve Walmsley on August 31, 2015, 07:32:31 PM
Since in the next patch were getting a whole bunch of simplifications to speed up AI i was wondering would it be possible to implement off screen rules for AI that are outside explored space?

Simply put if the ai are doing something outside explored space even if its combat it does not cause interrupts nad the game keeps running sim without stopping time (while running AI battle off screen)

or is this impossible or somesuch?

If you can lay out the rules for how NPRs fight without actually using the combat code, I would be happy to implement them :)
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: MarcAFK on August 31, 2015, 07:53:14 PM
Haha.  Well some kind of abstraction would work. But I would prefer just an option to  prevent the game stopping for NPR stuff and continue until the increment I specified.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: amimai on August 31, 2015, 08:08:38 PM
just sim those systems that are in the "off screen" category like econ events ect on a cycle that doesn't cause interrupts

everything for the AI runs as usual but instead of halting in the middle of the "players" 30 day time skip the time skip keeps running even as those events that the AI perpetrate on other AI at the other end of the galaxy sim

its literaly as simple as "if the player can't see it, it does not cause the player time skip to stop"
even while the AI stops time skip, does stuff, and restarts it in the background

fancy infographic time!
Off-Topic: show
(http://i.imgur.com/uzW1pWF.jpg?1)

although their may be a need for a "please wait while we sim the AI actually PLAYING THE GAME" waiting icon to avoid rage and "help my game is freeze" the may happen if the AI takes a really long time to play out their wars where player can not see it; loading/progress bar
[time skip is: 0=====|>---30]
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Paul M on September 01, 2015, 06:50:04 AM
I've never really seen the slowdowns with civilian traffic. I don't know if it is the new pathfinding code but I am running fourteen player races at the moment without any problems.

As I understand the posts on the issue it is the total number of ships the civillians have.  Apparently once a day each ship looks for something to transport.  There are several topics related to speeding up the game and they zero in on the size of the civillian merchant marine.  People use NPRs to hunt them down or whatever apparently.  I certainly can't comment myself, my game is at about 5 min for a 5 day turn (or less days game time if it is interupted) with 40+ clicks to clear the damned crew morale bug thing away.

My comment is basically to search for a ship for the lot as then you only have to execute as many searches as there are lots.  That has to be faster than the other way around.  I was also hoping you could get some "outsourced" help on the matter.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Steve Walmsley on September 01, 2015, 06:52:51 AM
just sim those systems that are in the "off screen" category like econ events ect on a cycle that doesn't cause interrupts

everything for the AI runs as usual but instead of halting in the middle of the "players" 30 day time skip the time skip keeps running even as those events that the AI perpetrate on other AI at the other end of the galaxy sim

its literaly as simple as "if the player can't see it, it does not cause the player time skip to stop"
even while the AI stops time skip, does stuff, and restarts it in the background

fancy infographic time!
Off-Topic: show
(http://i.imgur.com/uzW1pWF.jpg?1)

although their may be a need for a "please wait while we sim the AI actually PLAYING THE GAME" waiting icon to avoid rage and "help my game is freeze" the may happen if the AI takes a really long time to play out their wars where player can not see it; loading/progress bar
[time skip is: 0=====|>---30]

Aurora is a little more complicated than that :)

For example, how do I determine in the midst of the 30 day time step when two AI races detect each other. How do I determine when they are in range to fire? How do they react to the results of that fire or to the change courses of enemy ships? or to more ships entering the system?

In the next version you have the option to disable NPR vs NPR detection when no player ships are present, which will eliminate the above if you want speed at the expense of realism. However, there is no way to abstract combat in the manner you describe because all the AI code /detection code / combat code / movement code is built into the increment process. Without increments the AI can't detect anything or react to anything, or shoot anything, or plan anything.

BTW the only time I actually use 30 day time steps is early in a conventional campaign. My standard is 1-day time steps.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Steve Walmsley on September 01, 2015, 06:57:51 AM
As I understand the posts on the issue it is the total number of ships the civillians have.  Apparently once a day each ship looks for something to transport.  There are several topics related to speeding up the game and they zero in on the size of the civillian merchant marine.  People use NPRs to hunt them down or whatever apparently.  I certainly can't comment myself, my game is at about 5 min for a 5 day turn (or less days game time if it is interupted) with 40+ clicks to clear the damned crew morale bug thing away.

My comment is basically to search for a ship for the lot as then you only have to execute as many searches as there are lots.  That has to be faster than the other way around.  I was also hoping you could get some "outsourced" help on the matter.

That isn't how the civilians work. It sounds like something else is causing the slowdown. A civilian selects a trade run or colonist run and doesn't check again until that is completed, which can be weeks or months later. I have 164 civilian ships in my current campaign and the 1-day increments take about 4-5 seconds.

What is the crew morale bug? I thought the issue with morale was already fixed
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: MarcAFK on September 01, 2015, 07:14:29 AM
Paul started his epic campaign ages ago, as I recall he's running in 6.10 .
I've said this before many times but I know 5 second increments are essential for working out parts of the simulation, but I just would live an option for them to not stop turn processing unless they're actually caused by my own sensors.
Edit: I think that is part of what amimai was suggesting. Basically keep running turn processing as normal but don't stop unless it's something that's relevant to the player.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Paul M on September 01, 2015, 07:19:00 AM
That isn't how the civilians work. It sounds like something else is causing the slowdown. A civilian selects a trade run or colonist run and doesn't check again until that is completed, which can be weeks or months later. I have 164 civilian ships in my current campaign and the 1-day increments take about 4-5 seconds.

What is the crew morale bug? I thought the issue with morale was already fixed

Well I did a quick look for the topics but they aren't obviously visable but I clearly recall reading some that put the blame for the game slowdown squarely on the civillians and the fact they look for a job for each un-occupied ship on a daily basis.  I would love to have 1 day at 4-5 seconds I'm afraid 1 day for me is well over a minute.  People were commenting they created NPRs solely for the purpose of blowing up their own civillian shipping when it "got out of hand."

I would think the morale issue has been fixed but I am using 6.1 and for that version it isn't fixed...so I have to click away a crap load of errors due to crew morale due to the age of a ship as the ship is considered deployed or something.

I am seeing an error where the deployment time of a docked small craft increases as the ships deployment clock rather than remaining at 0 until launched, but this is a different matter.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: MarcAFK on September 01, 2015, 07:21:39 AM
I believe that was fixed too. Your horribly long increments might just be the way vb handles those errors. Is it possible to fix with designer mode I wonder?
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: xeryon on September 01, 2015, 07:40:23 AM
As suggested by HavingPhun in http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=7893.msg80590;topicseen#new

Suppress error popup windows regardless of issue.

Simple then: checkmark option to have all popup error windows dump data to a temp log file instead of error windows.  Game will keep running until it doesn't regardless of the errors.  Use at your own peril.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Paul M on September 01, 2015, 07:43:52 AM
I believe that was fixed too. Your horribly long increments might just be the way vb handles those errors. Is it possible to fix with designer mode I wonder?

Hmmmm...a 1 day turn takes a few minutes, followed by the ERROR xxxx which requires, last count, about 40 clicks to get past then there is 10-15 seconds more turn processing...if this is the case then the 10-15 seconds is likely the real turn processing time and the rest due to dealing with errors...  But as I know diddly about access I'm kinda dubious I could fix anything even in designer mode (unless we are talking straightforward well described steps here).

Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: MarcAFK on September 01, 2015, 07:47:44 AM
Well the errors are from an already fixed morale bug, so you could open the database and modify the deployment time for all affected units, it shouldn't be too time consuming with only 40 units, just open in a text editor and search for whatever string precedes deployment time.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Steve Walmsley on September 01, 2015, 08:38:04 AM
Paul started his epic campaign ages ago, as I recall he's running in 6.10 .
I've said this before many times but I know 5 second increments are essential for working out parts of the simulation, but I just would live an option for them to not stop turn processing unless they're actually caused by my own sensors.
Edit: I think that is part of what amimai was suggesting. Basically keep running turn processing as normal but don't stop unless it's something that's relevant to the player.

You mean still have the short increments but the player wouldn't need to press the turn button?

That should be happening in most cases already. The game has separate interrupt code for the AI and the players so that events that stop the game if they happen to the player, won't stop the game if they happen to an AI player. I'll go through the EventType table and see if I can flag a few more as 'no interrupt'.

Also you can use the Minimum Increments options on the tactical map to force the game to keep processing increments no matter what happens.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Steve Walmsley on September 01, 2015, 08:40:08 AM
Well the errors are from an already fixed morale bug, so you could open the database and modify the deployment time for all affected units, it shouldn't be too time consuming with only 40 units, just open in a text editor and search for whatever string precedes deployment time.

Or unlock the classes in the F5 window and edit it there. Just remember to select each ship in the Ship window so it updates the class-related data. What is error message connected with the morale bug btw?
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Paul M on September 01, 2015, 09:12:20 AM
The morale bug error message is:

Quote
ErrorInCheckCrewMorale

Error 3421 created by DAO.field
Data Conversion Error

You replied to my error report with a link to another message where you said:
Quote
The problem is that I am using a long variable instead of a double to store the last launch time (which is stored for all ships even if they never enter a hangar). Because your game has been running for a long time, the number of seconds passed the game has exceeded the capacity of the database field. This is fixed for v6.20 but will continue to affect current games.

If anyone wants to fix this for a current game and has Access, you need to change the data type of the LastLaunchTime in the Ship table to Double (or currency).

The other error is that the docked small craft have a deployment time equal to the deployment time of their mothership rather than 0.  So when they launch they immediately suffer a morale failure.  So far this is "I don't care" issue as the pinnaces have no systems affected by morale.  When the armed pinnaces show up this will be a much more substantial problem.

I don't have Access so can't modify anything anyway....but I also don't know anything about the program at all, never used it in my life.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: amimai on September 01, 2015, 09:40:10 AM
yea that:
You mean still have the short increments but the player wouldn't need to press the turn button?
yes x 100

I'm not sure anyone cares that the AI they have not met ran 5000 5second increments in the space of 1 day on the other side of the galaxy while fighting another AI that you never met, its just not relevant to the player.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: MarcAFK on September 01, 2015, 10:11:10 AM
Yes, that's exactly what I think many people would want. Merely setting auto turns to get through NPR interrupts can be rather dangerous.
Edit:
You mean still have the short increments but the player wouldn't need to press the turn button?

That should be happening in most cases already. The game has separate interrupt code for the AI and the players so that events that stop the game if they happen to the player, won't stop the game if they happen to an AI player. I'll go through the EventType table and see if I can flag a few more as 'no interrupt'.

It's been a while since I've ran into AI related interrupts, so I can't really recall what was causing them, I would run some tests if my pc was working :(
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: xeryon on September 01, 2015, 10:16:24 AM
Also you can use the Minimum Increments options on the tactical map to force the game to keep processing increments no matter what happens.

The problem with that toggle is that the turns blow right past a legitimate interrupt that affects the player.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Steve Walmsley on September 01, 2015, 11:05:54 AM
yea that:yes x 100

I'm not sure anyone cares that the AI they have not met ran 5000 5second increments in the space of 1 day on the other side of the galaxy while fighting another AI that you never met, its just not relevant to the player.

Well, it probably is relevant to the player if two of his potential enemies are fighting and I personally would rather the battle played out as it affects future battles in which the player is involved and generates wrecks and potential tech information. Some players are happy to sacrifice some realism for faster play. That's why in v6.50 you can turn off NPR vs. NPR detection  (and even NPR generation of NPRs/Spoilers) and prevent any battles at all unless you are in the system.

Even if the NPRs (as they currently do) generate a lot of short increments without an interrupt, it doesn't make it any faster for the player if I display a lot of 5 second increments or one long increment (in fact the former is better because the latter would look like the program had frozen.

Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: iceball3 on September 01, 2015, 11:17:04 AM
The problem with that toggle is that the turns blow right past a legitimate interrupt that affects the player.
This is an easy one, actually. Just set on auto-turns and set minimum increment to 0. It will basically just increment turns until anything relevant to the player comes up in the event window. Since it will skip only event-less turns automatically, you don't have to worry about missing anything important as just about anything important will make the increments stop.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: amimai on September 01, 2015, 11:28:08 AM
but if you have auto-turns toggled and set to 0 it will halt the sim even if the most pointless interrupt causing event in the universe happens, and in mid game those events happen with startling regularity...

its especially bad if you have something like mineral shortage or another event that triggers every single turn occurring that happens in the middle of a 5 hour long AI v AI 5 second increment war (and the several thousand mouse clicks this involves)
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Steve Walmsley on September 01, 2015, 11:33:29 AM
but if you have auto-turns toggled and set to 0 it will halt the sim even if the most pointless interrupt causing event in the universe happens, and in mid game those events happen with startling regularity...

its especially bad if you have something like mineral shortage or another event that procs every single turn occurring that happens in the middle of a 5 hour long AI v AI 5 second increment war

A mineral shortage for NPRs doesn't cause an interrupt. Only a mineral shortage for the player. Very few events actually cause an interrupt if they aren't player-related. The NPRs tend to cause shortened increment rather than interrupts. Check you aren't trying to build something without having the necessary mineral supplies. If so, pause or cancel that task and the interrupts will stop.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Steve Walmsley on September 01, 2015, 01:41:46 PM
This is a repost of an update to the v6.50 changes thread - relevant to the discussion here

There has been some debate on the forums about NPR interrupts so I thought it was worth clarifying how they work and what has changed for v6.50

There are two ways in which a turn can be shortened. If the program believes something is about to happen, like a missile or ship entering detection range, it will shorten the turn at the start. The second is through an interrupt, which is caused by a notable event and ends the turn so that the player (or an NPR) can react to it. Some interrupts are player only, such a ship being constructed or a system being surveyed, and some are interrupts for both players and NPR, such as a ship being destroyed or missiles being launched.

Note that the NPR AI code for movement and combat takes place at the start of a turn, so if anything significant happens relating to an NPR, the NPR needs a new turn in order to evaluate the event and react to it. Once a player interrupt occurs, it ends automated turns so the player can react. However, the AI doesn't need a break to react - it just needs to start a new turn - so interrupts are flagged as Player Events or Non-Player Events. A Player event is either something directly affecting a player, or an NPR event that involves a player, such as the NPR detecting the player. For NPR events that do not involve players, Automated Turns are not switched off. This is how it works in 6.40 btw - not a change for v6.50.

It's also worth noting that Automatic Turns only work if you are using the Tactical Map - the time buttons on the Population Window or the Galactic Map don't use Automated Turns.

In v6.40 there are 264 different events in Aurora, 60 of which don't cause interrupts for players and 184 of which don't cause interrupts for NPRs. For v6.50 I revisited the event list to see if I can reduce the number of interrupts for NPRs and now there are only 27 events that will trigger NPRs interrupts. The list is shown below. These are all events that the AI will need to evaluate and potentially issue a change in orders.

In addition for v6.50, I am going to change Player Events to only events that directly involve the player, so an NPR detecting a player will no longer stop automated turns.

NPR Interrupt Events
Target Hit
Missile Launch
Ship Destroyed
Damage Taken
Ship Slowed
Alien Fleet
Alien Population
New Thermal Contact
Population Surrender
Hostile Transit Detected
Jump Point Detected
New Alien Race
Missile Intercepted
New Hostile Contact
Missile Contact
Shipyard Contact
New System Discovered
Active Sensor Detected
Population Detected
Shields Detected
Jump Point Found
Ramming Attempt
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: MarcAFK on September 01, 2015, 06:39:11 PM
Great news, now when an NPR detects my exploration ship the only warning I get will be from it's destruction. As it should be :p
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: iceball3 on September 01, 2015, 07:21:31 PM
Great news, now when an NPR detects my exploration ship the only warning I get will be from it's destruction. As it should be :p
If you put any sensors (size 1 and lower are commercial) on it or if it survives the first salvo/hit then a few seconds warning before it's ultimate destruction.
Alternatively, you might be the kind of person who puts CIWS on their ships, meaning that you may be able to escape the system with the ship barely intact... Maybe. Chances are a lot better when you use escorts.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: MarcAFK on September 01, 2015, 07:46:14 PM
Yeah, it's good to gather minimal intelligence like what speed the missile that took down the ship was travelling at, or the speed / energy weapons range of enemy beam combatants.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: amimai on September 02, 2015, 08:01:20 AM
I found a logical inconsistency!

i use MIRV with warheads, but once the MIRV missiles releases its payload the primary carrier missile does not speed up accordingly with the lowered mass of the missile sans MIRV bomblets!

PLZ Fix
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Steve Walmsley on September 02, 2015, 08:11:35 AM
I found a logical inconsistency!

i use MIRV with warheads, but once the MIRV missiles releases its payload the primary carrier missile does not speed up accordingly with the lowered mass of the missile sans MIRV bomblets!

PLZ Fix

If that is the biggest inconsistency you found, I am in good shape :)

How about the ships maintaining the same speed when they should be under constantly increasing acceleration due to fuel use?

Or how do the ships instantly change direction at 4000 km/s?

Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: amimai on September 02, 2015, 08:20:42 AM
If that is the biggest inconsistency you found, I am in good shape :)

How about the ships maintaining the same speed when they should be under constantly increasing acceleration due to fuel use?

Or how do the ships instantly change direction at 4000 km/s?
i assumed that was the "trans-Newtonian" part of trans-Newtonian

this makes MIRV game play impractical with is sad
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Steve Walmsley on September 02, 2015, 08:25:07 AM
i assumed that was the "trans-Newtonian" part of trans-Newtonian

this makes MIRV game play impractical with is sad

If the ships follow the Trans-Newtonian rules, why would the missiles be different? Empty freighters don't move any faster than full ones for example?
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: amimai on September 02, 2015, 08:28:48 AM
good point! it must be another logical inconsistency!
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: iceball3 on September 02, 2015, 04:13:52 PM
good point! it must be another logical inconsistency!
Except it is logically consistent because all of the mechanics in the game work like this.
Cargo, missiles, hangar space, maintence storage, cryogenic capacity, all of it.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: MarcAFK on September 02, 2015, 05:54:47 PM
A space wizard did it.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: alex_brunius on September 04, 2015, 09:11:38 AM
A space wizard did it.

A very powerful space wizard going by the name of Steve.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Erik Luken on September 04, 2015, 10:17:50 AM
i assumed that was the "trans-Newtonian" part of trans-Newtonian

this makes MIRV game play impractical with is sad

Why are MIRVs impractical? If my one munition generates 6 sub-munitions, that's 6 more targets for the PD to deal with. If my salvo is 30, then all of a sudden it is 180, that's a big-ass pain in the PD's butt.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Lossmar on September 04, 2015, 11:35:32 AM
Why are MIRVs impractical? If my one munition generates 6 sub-munitions, that's 6 more targets for the PD to deal with. If my salvo is 30, then all of a sudden it is 180, that's a big-ass pain in the PD's butt.

This.

Why would speed of empty first MIRV stage bother you after releasing submunition ?? Its sole purpose is to deliver swarm of missiles/single large one over range longer than single stage missile would allow. Thats it.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: xeryon on September 04, 2015, 11:56:52 AM
It might be from a misunderstanding of what exactly a MIRV is.  If someone was thinking it was one projectile that split into two or more and with the split each piece was identical (literally, the missile split into two).
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: amimai on September 05, 2015, 03:43:31 AM
It might be from a misunderstanding of what exactly a MIRV is.  If someone was thinking it was one projectile that split into two or more and with the split each piece was identical (literally, the missile split into two).

well we are all using the word wrong in any case  :P

in any case i define a MIRV as anything the releases sub munitions
my ones even carry warheads on them  ;D

ie:
carrier missile
sub munition: 20xSize 1 bomblet

thats why speed actually maters to me after bomblet release, i still have a use for the primary missile
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: MarcAFK on September 05, 2015, 08:00:03 AM
Well to be a complete pedant MIRV means multiple independent reentry vehicle, historically by the time separation occurs everything is ballistic, changes in weight would make no difference, only air resistance.
But in aurora we mean something different, but in a similar vein the pre separation bus is basically just a transportation stage, after ejection it's job is done and it would make no sense for it to accelerate or do anything more.
If one designed a Newtonian multi stage missile and launched it into space you would find that after separation the bus would continue travelling on the same path at the same speed, excepting of course the disruptive effect that the drive exhaust of the second stage would have on the first stage colliding into it.
But in aurora engines don't conserve momentum, once they're shut off ships stop immediately. In aurora weight doesn't have direct correlation with speed, freighters keep the same speed loaded as unloaded, carriers don't speed up after launching fighters, cruisers don't accelerate after delivering a punishing alpha strike of missiles weighing 10% the ships weight. Fuel use doesn't increase speed, etc. Damaged engines will reduce a ships speed though.
But what about tractored vessels? A tugs speed changes based on the weight of the towed ship right ?  I have a theory that what actually affects a ships speed is it's HS, which is the ships volume, it's just a coincidence that 1 HS weighs 50 tons.
Think about it, a ships volume doesn't change when it uses fuel, launches parasites, missiles, unloads freight, etc. But the total volume does change when a tug tows a vessel, which causes a speed reduction.

Edit:

Reading through the trans Newtonian campaign when I saw this:

I have been reading up on electronic warfare lately so a future version (but not v4.0) could have systems along the lines of the following:

1) Jammers that can jam all active sensors and fire controls of a particular resolution within a specific area. This will affect friendly ships within the same area as well.
2) Jammers that jam a specific hostile active sensor within range of the jammer
3) Decoys that will have a chance to distract self-guiding missiles within a set range
4) Decoys that will appear to be ships to enemy sensors, or flares to generate thermal signatures
5) On-board blip enhancers to make targets appear larger
6) Some form of chaff to block hostile fire control against a specific target
7) A Towed decoy that exactly replicates the signatures of a particular ship
8) Specialized passive sensors that can detect the lock on of hostile fire control systems

These systems would replace the current ECM. ECCM would consist of improved sensors to burn through the jamming or be able to figure out which are the decoys, etc. This is all in the early stages at the moment though.

Steve
Sounds great, what was the result of your research into this?
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: swarm_sadist on September 10, 2015, 02:20:02 PM
Some more random wish list:

1. ECM and ECCM be modifiable like other sensor systems. Variables such as the size of the system, how powerful it is (ie: range, rule of square), how effective it is (ie: efficiency), how hardened it is, and how stealthy it is. With a powerful but low tech ECCM being able to simply burn through even very high level ECM at close range.
^^I realize there is a post concerning EW above me, but in my defence I did not see that until I looked at the preview.

2. Laser CIWS, Meson CIWS and Railgun CIWS. I realize not everyone uses CIWS, but I love the idea of having a Laser GUARDIAN system (Mass Effect) or a railgun based Asteroid Defence System (Dead Space). Also the ability of CIWS to target fighters and boarding parties that stray too close when there are no more missiles to shoot.

3. Having modular 'slots' where the roles of certain ships and fighters can be changed. Examples include ECM pods for fighters, changing a shuttle from long-range recon duty to troop ferrying duty, or changing a ship's weapon configuration for certain missions. Sometimes I wish I could just modify a ship for one mission instead of having to retrofit the entire ship for several months.

4. More satellite equipment for ships. Orbital loaders, ferries and lighters (Ship based Spaceport), Medical lab (population growth, genetic engineering), Fighter or Ordinance Fabrication, Internal/Mobile Shipyard, Manufacturing Sections, Supply Production, GF Training (Bonus to Marines) and so forth. Having some of them work without orbiting a body would be nice as well.

5. Secret Police, Propaganda Centres, Reeducation Centres, which lower the effects of unrest, or lower unrest entirely. Military Police ground units, which reduce unrest greatly compared to other units.

6. Atmospheric Dust should lower the accuracy of future orbital bombardment, but any misses should still produce dust and hit civilian targets.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: 83athom on September 14, 2015, 11:28:39 AM
I was wondering if anyone besides me would like to have a hangar reloaded gun that works somewhat similar to the box launchers, like the Metal Storm (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_Storm).
(http://hugelolcdn.com/i/110427.gif)
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: linkxsc on September 14, 2015, 06:09:35 PM
I was wondering if anyone besides me would like to have a hangar reloaded gun that works somewhat similar to the box launchers, like the Metal Storm (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_Storm).
(http://hugelolcdn.com/i/110427.gif)

Correct my understanding if I'm wrong.
So say a 1HS sized gauss cannon, that still has 100% base accuracy (as opposed to the 16% it would), but has a limited magazine (perhaps 1HS of ammo equals 40 shots, affected by ROF tech ofcrouse, so a rof1 would get 40 5 sec increments worth of fire, while a rof8 one would only get 5 5 sec increments of fire.)
???

But enough about that. Heres my POS suggestion.

How about making it so that the player can have 2 or more System Maps (F3) open at the same time. Each locked to a particular factions view.
Reasons for doing this. 1, Perhaps when doing a multi faction campaign, open different maps on different windows at the same time.
2, perhaps you're actually fighting a battle against an npr in 2-3 systems at teh same time, and want to keep track of them all, but are having issues jumping between the actual systems in a single map.
3, if I want to grab a couple friends, and have them fight eachother. i can give them each a screen (or livestream) showing their system map (sensors and all that), and thats it, and I as the SM can give orders as they ask.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: MarcAFK on September 14, 2015, 08:03:06 PM
Well to be honest Rail guns should require ammunition, I would also love to be able to select the number of shots per salvo.
But I'm happy enough with the way they work now.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: linkxsc on September 14, 2015, 09:45:25 PM
Well to be honest Rail guns should require ammunition, I would also love to be able to select the number of shots per salvo.
But I'm happy enough with the way they work now.

Perhaps, but they're already in a lot of ways worse than lasers as the main Missile/Kinetic vs Energy Weapons, categories.
Higher research costs, shorter range. Penetration of lasers vs railguns taking lots of chunks out of armor, is also a pretty big deal depending on your enemy's armor doctrine.
Like I'm not saying I want the weapons to be identical across the board, but if rails started using ammo constantly, AND needing reactors... yeah that seems a little iffy, as far as balance.

WTB, spinal mount rails huehuehuehue 120cm advanced spinal mount railgun. Just fire 4 small meteors at the enemy ship in quick succession.

Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Rich.h on September 15, 2015, 03:04:00 AM
Not sure if this is possible and I am just missing how to do it, but the ability to move POW's around would be nice. I made a mistake of offloading my first ever POW's to my research colony then found I was stuck with them there once the racial biology research was complete. I had set up a new penal colony on a nice sunny chunk of rock for these and all future prisoners but saw no possible way to pick up the POW's from the original colony they were off loaded to.

So if this is not already in I would love the ability to shuttle POW's around using my own vessels, the deep mines won't operate themselves you know.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: TheDeadlyShoe on September 15, 2015, 03:24:48 AM
I'm not sure ammunition would do much except limit extreme edge cases where like 1 beam ship gradually kills hundreds of FACs.

Even then it would just have to fly back for mo ammo.

Quote
WTB, spinal mount rails huehuehuehue 120cm advanced spinal mount railgun. Just fire 4 small meteors at the enemy ship in quick succession.
Personal opinion:  Decoupling weapon size from theoretical research would be pretty sweet.  You could build massive spinal primary weapons, and really core the smeg out even thickly armored targets. If you hit ;p

Maybe also couple that with making all BFCs able to fire out to 5ls, or able to build super-oversize BFC.  Then you could actually use beam area defence!

Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Paul M on September 15, 2015, 06:18:30 AM
I'm still rather fond of the "Renegade Legion: Leviathan" ships with their spinal mount mass driver...hard to get it into arc but boy when you could "Toss the Crowbar" ...the several tonne iron rod it threw I used to call a "Thunder Strike" when it hit.  As the even the destroyers in that game were 0.5 km long (the Battleships were closer to 2 km) they had realistically a lot of kinetic energy when they hit.  This was around a 5000 mm rail gun, not some sort of fighter mountable pop cannon (120 mm).

But realistically rail guns should require ammo space as should guass cannon and it should be possible to run out of ammo.

The "lost fleet" series handled this well, with the fleet having the auxillaries around who made up new kinetic projectiles from asteroids between fights (as well as spare parts and so forth).

The real problem with the game system from Leviathan was the fact they changed it to make fighters viable in less than huge numbers against the capital ships...the Star Wars Effect...
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: TheDeadlyShoe on September 15, 2015, 06:21:06 AM
well technically the diameter of a railgun doesn't even matter xD

just the NRG

Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: linkxsc on September 15, 2015, 08:10:14 AM
well technically the diameter of a railgun doesn't even matter xD

just the NRG

well to an extent yes, and too an extent no. A lot of people like to talk about how powerful railguns could be because they can get LOL 5 gram projectiles up to hundreds of km/s. But truth is, even if a tiny projectile had that much energy, it would probably still be blocked quite easily by armor due to Newtons Approximation of impact death. Basically above a certain speed, the speed matters no more and its all the density of the projectile vs the density of the armor.
And even if it did penetrate, it would blast through with a sairly small non explosive projectile, not doing too much (best case is it doesn't go through and out the other side and instead bounces around a bit).
Once you reach the max projectile speed... your best bet from there is to scale the projectile size up, and try to keep the same speed.

Which could actually be quite interesting. Perhaps as a silly thought, Add a new kinetic weapon, the Coil Gun, fires explosive fillered (magnetic filler also for acceleration) rounds.
From start it can be scaled in size as high as wished, yet larger guns have shorter range (due to projectile speed). Instead of researching range and weapon size. You research kinetic energy technologies (or just coil tech) that allows higher amounts of energy being put into the gun. And thus extending the range on the same sized weapon.
(railguns fire solid aluminum or other diamagnetic rounds, can't have explosive filler due to the electric charge actualyl running through the round)

dunno, gotta head to school, will elaborate later
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: 83athom on September 15, 2015, 08:47:40 AM
But truth is, even if a tiny projectile had that much energy, it would probably still be blocked quite easily by armor due to Newtons Approximation of impact death. Basically above a certain speed, the speed matters no more and its all the density of the projectile vs the density of the armor.
Well that is true, however when you start accelerating a projectile in a smaller space (lets say to about 0.25c+ in 100m), the projectile would condense itself do to the immense pressures put on it.
And even if it did penetrate, it would blast through with a fairly small non explosive projectile, not doing too much (best case is it doesn't go through and out the other side and instead bounces around a bit).
Once you reach the max projectile speed... your best bet from there is to scale the projectile size up, and try to keep the same speed.
Also true, however the impact force of even the small projectiles will still be an immense issue for an enemy ship. Even though they would pass strait through, they will still leave behind so much kinetic energy that passing through doesn't really matter. I can't help but think about the super MACs from halo, they are so powerful that they blast through 2 Covenant ships (completely destroying them) and then cripple a third (although this gives you a bit more credit, oh well).
Which could actually be quite interesting. Perhaps as a silly thought, Add a new kinetic weapon, the Coil Gun, fires explosive fillered (magnetic filler also for acceleration) rounds.
A coil gun is a gauss weapon, so maybe instead you can set the ammo type when designing the gauss cannon.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: linkxsc on September 15, 2015, 11:04:06 PM
Would like considered, the ability to generate a new solar system... BUT, I'd like to be able to create individually every planet, moon, asteroid, and comet in the system, with my own paramaters. (Setting orbital distance and speed, and perhaps a starting angle off of "north" so I don't have to run the simulation for a few centuries to jumble everything up).

Why do I want this. Well because I'm a moron pure and simple.
I'd like to take your silly space game, and play out glorious naval warfare simulations with it, how bout that. Make a bunch of planets, and conveniently place them around in the rough areas of naval bases during the second world war, perhaps the Pacific Theatre of Operations. Turn off orbital motion.
Figure that 1000km/s would be about equal to 60km/hr (a little less than 40 knots, fairly average speed for "fast" warships). Do a little math and scale the distance between the bases so they're roughly the same distance (travel time wise) apart as IRL.

Yes yes, use the game engine, to do completely what it was not made to do. It would be wonderful.

1Well that is true, however when you start accelerating a projectile in a smaller space (lets say to about 0.25c+ in 100m), the projectile would condense itself do to the immense pressures put on it.
2Also true, however the impact force of even the small projectiles will still be an immense issue for an enemy ship. Even though they would pass strait through, they will still leave behind so much kinetic energy that passing through doesn't really matter. I can't help but think about the super MACs from halo, they are so powerful that they blast through 2 Covenant ships (completely destroying them) and then cripple a third (although this gives you a bit more credit, oh well).
3A coil gun is a gauss weapon, so maybe instead you can set the ammo type when designing the gauss cannon.
1. (TBH, max range 50cm rail is actually firing at 1.2c)
But I don't understand what you mean by "condensing itself" unless you mean that the projectile will be "flattened" by Lorentz contraction.
Note that thats for shrinkage which might produce better penetration.
At the same time the mass of the projectile would scale up again by the same relativistic factor.
If the game wanted to be slightly more scientifically accurate. A if a 50cm rail with 1 vel (200km range, 40kkm/s speed, .13c) deals 20 damage on hit. A 50cm rail with 7 range tech, 1.4mkm r, 280mkm/s or .93c, woudl be almsot 2.7 times as heavy of a projectile at the speed, and should deal like 54 damage on hit. The best damage dealing weapon would be a 45cm rail at max range tech, with .96c projectile speed, and the 16 base damage would go up 3.6 times to over 57 damage on hit. Because relativistic effects OP.

2. at relativistic speeds, there'd honestly be chances of both really. Possibly a highly shrunken relativistic projectile could blast straight through a ship, leave a nice hole, and transfer almost no kinetic energy, primarily because at such high speeds, the atoms of the projectile can't really interact with the atoms of the target ship, coruscate this would only happen at speed in excess of .99c. With slower projectiles having an easier time hitting and transferring their energy to the target ship.
Meanwhile, if your armor was thicker, there would be more to interact with your projectile and try to absorb that energy. There would be more kinetic energy transferred to the target. (almost like, less armor would be better vs such extremely fast projectiles.)
Or it would obliterate the entire ship and turn the whole thing into a glowing, rapidly expanding, cloud of plasma. Dunno, we've never acutally done any kidn of proper testing firing relativistic speeded projectiles at stuff.

3. Point for me saying "coilgun" rather than gauss cannon, was so it could be a different research line than the existing gauss cannons (Which a large amount of the game and AI rely heavily on) and it might be quite problematic to start tinkering with the existing gauss cannon mechanics. Ofcourse a coilgun and a guass cannon are names for the same thing, and very much not the same as railguns.
Perhaps not even call them coilguns though. forget this scifi BS. I want a regular cannon.
gonna work out the exact sillines behind my plotted idea in the morning though. its getting late.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: MarcAFK on September 16, 2015, 01:12:28 AM
I've been thinking that I need the designer mode password and a whole bunch of database edits I order to run a WWII simulation.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Paul M on September 16, 2015, 02:54:21 AM
It is not lorentz contraction that is the issue...it is the fact that at Aurora velocities what happens when two solid objects impact causes my mind to go blank.  Normally the only thing moving at those velocities are ions or electrons in accelerators.  They interact in a specific way with a target material...now we have two solid objects that are going to interact somewhate differently.  The Newton Appoximation of Impact Depth you mention is not relevant due to the fact it assumes a realistic/reasonable velocity for the objects in question.  It assumes the material impacted on can infact move as a liquid...in this case the impact speed exceeds the phonon speed...it exceeds atomic speeds in a solid.  Even the situation in a core-bounce during a supernova when you have infalling material passing through the outgoing shock front from the core contraction is not the same sort of thing as everything is plasma.  Asteroid impacts are about the closest you get but the impact velocities are much lower (low 10s of km/s).

So...and this is has a lot of assumptions and approximations...
5 gm object 5 mm long moving at 1000 km/s (and this is SLOW in aurora)...has a kinetic energy of 0.0025 kg*10^12 m2/s2 = 2.5x10^9 J
Impact distance is 5 mm (assuming it stops in its length as would be suggested by the NAID forumla for two like dense objects)...2*accelleration*0.005 m = 0 - (10^6 m/s)^2
acceleration = -10^14 m/s2 = more than enough Gs to produce compaction of the target as basically the nose brakes and the tail impacts on it...and frankly this number isn't signfically modified by the length so long as you assume the ship has dimensions in the 100s of m (so it could take 100m to stop and you still get "absurd" G forces on the projectile)...to put this is perspective the suns surface gravity is 30 G

It is fairly safe to assume the projectile does not survive the impact..it is converted into a plasma.  Temperature change of the impactor for 2x10^9 J kinetic energy transfered to heat is E = mc(Tf-Ti) = 0.005 kg * 1 (assuming a heat capacity of water) * (Tf - 0K) = well ok 10^12 K...right ...hmmm even with losses (which won't happen since phonon speed is below projectile speed) I assume you now may have a situation where that energy is transfered to the target in a localized area and thermal shock causes issues to the target.

The time for the brake to happen is 0.005 m = 10^14*0.5*t^2 = > t = 10 ns ...thus the power of the impactor is E/t = well nothing sensible....0.2 Exa watts....probably down to Penta Watts for a few m of stopping distance...

Just to make it complete let us look at the momentum transfer for a fully stopped impactor...
10^6 m/s*0.005 kg = 5000 kgm/s  a 2000 kg car moving 100 kph has a momentum of 2000 kg * 28 m/s = 56 000 kgm/s so this 5 gm projectile is the equivelent of behing hit by a car moving at 10 kph.  But this means that even a 50 000 tonne vessel hit by this...5x10^7 kg*v = 5000 kgm/s has a new velocity of 1x10^-4 m/s but this velocity change was accomplished in 10 ns so the acceleration of the ship was v/t = 1x10^-4 m/s / 10x10^-9 s = 10^4 m/s2 or a thousand Gs...every human on the ship now resembles strawberry jam...and serious structual damage

And this is all for 1000 km/s and 5 g...  consider what may happen if you speak of impact by a 250 000 km/s several thousand kg missile or 100 kg rail slug or whatever.

And I make no claim that I've not forgot a factor of 2 or pi in the above, and the above is well the most trivial analysis possible but my point is basically that my mind goes blank when I consider the situation.  The only thing that seems to be absolutely clear is that in the end the impactor becomes plasma...the plamsa induces a thermal shock wave in the target which responds by spalling and ablating material which further adds to the structural shocks the target faces.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: TheDeadlyShoe on September 16, 2015, 03:07:55 AM
the wrench in all of that is that we are dealing with trans-newtonian physics so the ability of kinetic energy to inflict damage is strictly arbitrary

the actual energy imparted by the railgun might be quite low, and the velocity of the projectile (as indicated by its range) is in fact a transnewtonian pseudovelocity the limitations of which impose the hard limit on railgun range
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Paul M on September 16, 2015, 05:13:29 AM
the wrench in all of that is that we are dealing with trans-newtonian physics so the ability of kinetic energy to inflict damage is strictly arbitrary

the actual energy imparted by the railgun might be quite low, and the velocity of the projectile (as indicated by its range) is in fact a transnewtonian pseudovelocity the limitations of which impose the hard limit on railgun range

What you say is correct but I can't account for psuedo velocities and so on.  My point mainly was you can't apply the "Newtons Approximation of Impact Depth" to a situation where the impactor velocity is greater than the speed of the electrons in the material.  At that point the math leads you towards "absurd" rather quickly.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: MarcAFK on September 16, 2015, 06:51:39 AM
I've seen this discussion somewhere before, it might be in one of the Newtonian Aurora threads, I'm remembering there's exotic physics related to these kinds of velocities that hasn't been brought up yet but I can't remember the specifics.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Rich.h on September 25, 2015, 05:01:15 AM
The ability to copy weapon & FC control assignments would be nice. I understand we already have this for copying from one ship to another but on a ship only basis would be nice. For example a ship has 30 FC for missiles, and also has 30 size 1 missile launchers. Most of the time this will be set up in such a way where you will have one launcher per FC to create 30 salvos, once set up once if you never change the format it is nice and simple. But if for any reason you were to change your salvos it would require you to go through 30 FC setups again manually. If instead you could have an option where you could set up one FC then have an auto button that will allocate an equal number of equal sized weapons to any empty FC's of equal properties to the one selected. This save a hell of a lot of time.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Rich.h on September 25, 2015, 09:28:49 AM
It would be handy to have a couple of extra filters for the events window. We already have one for command assignments but there times where I would like to see some assignments. If possible it would be useful to be able to have different command assignment types filters, so I could have a filter for ground troops, a filter for commercial ships, and a filter for military ships.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: 83athom on September 25, 2015, 10:04:37 AM
Would it be possible/Steve-be-willing to add an AOE warhead to the game like the Continuous-rod warhead (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous-rod_warhead) (annular blast fragmentation)? Except with nuclear/antimatter equivalent, kind of like the Diamondback missile (prototype nuclear sidewinder variant). Also, possibly a proximity fuse to go along with it so even if you miss you might get a slight boost to your chance at a hit (like a reroll or a +xx%).
Pros; AOE damage, Some damage is done even if shot down at close range(possibly), Actual mines that don't just fire another missile (but a lot more ineffective), Can hit multiple ships in a TG. Effective against; Light Fighters, Drones, Missiles, lightly armored ships (civilian, recon, commercial, civilian, etc)
Cons;Reduced damage per warhead msp, Reduced damage per distance.

Possibly it could go something like this;
Targeted ship; when the normal rolls to see if you hit or not, If it fails roll again with the same chances and if that hits do 50%-75% damage (passing both does nothing extra)
Ships in TG; Roll twice, if both pass do 50%-75% damage, if one passes do 25%-50% damage, and if all fail do nothing
Ships within a set of range (idk, maybe 5000 km?); Divide CtH by 2 and roll, if pass do 10%-25% damage.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: TheDeadlyShoe on September 25, 2015, 12:47:27 PM
If you look at the newtonian aurora mechanics documents, you can see steve's design for AOE high-power nukes
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: backstab on September 27, 2015, 07:12:56 PM
I'd like to see the ability to name colonies.  I have a power on a planet that has taken multiple colonies from various other nations and it is getting hard to determine which prior colony is which.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: MarcAFK on September 27, 2015, 10:57:35 PM
Am I blind or is there no easy way to sort through a bazillion contacts on the system menu?
I would love clicking on a contact on the list to recenter the window to its location. There's a Russian colony somewhere I'm at a loss to find, it may be on the moon.
Ok I can see it on the system information menu, but it would be helpful for sorting through ships too.
Another suggestion, allow permanent research/wealth/industry/population growth etc bonuses to be set for an empire when it's first created.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: 83athom on September 28, 2015, 09:26:52 AM
I'd like to see the ability to name colonies.  I have a power on a planet that has taken multiple colonies from various other nations and it is getting hard to determine which prior colony is which.
Can't you already do that? On the bottom bar of the summary screen there is a button called "Rename".
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: swarm_sadist on September 28, 2015, 12:19:15 PM
Can't you already do that? On the bottom bar of the summary screen there is a button called "Rename".
That renames the whole planet. When there are multiple colonies on the planet from occupation and surrender, they just rename themselves to whatever the planet is named. Therefor you would have 2+ colonies named "Earth". He wants to be able to rename just the colony.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: MarcAFK on September 30, 2015, 06:50:05 PM
A default order for task force training would be excellent, combined with making a fleet receiving conditional orders not cause an interrupt would make my game run smoother.
At the moment half my interrupts are from training squadrons announcing they're going back to earth to refuel, then later that they have done so and are waiting for new orders.
Ideally I should be able to automate a squadron for training, refuelling then training again and get no interrupts until either the entire fleet reaches 100% or they start getting maintenance failures.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: linkxsc on October 02, 2015, 03:45:59 PM
A default order for task force training would be excellent, combined with making a fleet receiving conditional orders not cause an interrupt would make my game run smoother.
At the moment half my interrupts are from training squadrons announcing they're going back to earth to refuel, then later that they have done so and are waiting for new orders.
Ideally I should be able to automate a squadron for training, refuelling then training again and get no interrupts until either the entire fleet reaches 100% or they start getting maintenance failures.

I concur
Its also an annoyance when trying to use conditionals to order state run colony ships, every pickup and dropoff results in an interrupt.
Ofcourse fuel usage ones are kinda important sometimes. For example, scout ships and survey ships that are often FAR away from any kind of refueling support, I do like that they cause interrupts, but on other ships, not so much.
Perhaps have a checkbox next to the order where it is set such that when checked, it actas as an interrupt, oterwise, the ship just automatically executes its conditional orders and chugs along (perhaps still notifying the player in events though.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: MarcAFK on October 02, 2015, 06:06:24 PM
At the moment you will get an interrupt when the ship runs out of orders anyway.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Krictic on October 08, 2015, 08:04:38 AM
So, my idea is to make pre-TN technologies more relevant, i know the game revolve around TN, but i think adding a few "current-day" tech would add tremendously to realism, i mean, by deacelerating TN development and adding a few pre-TN tech we would be able to do smaller, longer missions that requires more planning, by travelling at speed as slow as 70km/s, space travel wouldn´t be so trivial to do as it is.

maybe that´s already been discussed, but i wanted to give some input anyway.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Rich.h on October 08, 2015, 08:32:12 AM
If possible can we have more shift/ctrl clicking on the combat overview screen? So far we can select multiple weapons when assigning them to a fire control, but when assigning a target with FC's can only select on FC at a time. I have noticed now I have moved into larger ships with large numbers of weapon systems and FC that this can become a serious chore. When they AI decides to offload 50+ large salvos of missiles at me and I have a group of PD escorts along I can almost hear the cries of agony from my mouse. I'm not sure if it was simply never thought to be needed or cannot be done for that section of the screen.

In a similar fashion could we get shift/ctrl clicks added to the ground unit tab of the population window, and also to the task group window for the ships in the TG section?
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: chrislocke2000 on October 09, 2015, 05:32:52 AM
It would be great to have an order to jump and divide survey vessels as well as the jump and divide vessels currently in place. With the new fuel rules I'm finding a need for larger support fleets for my survey expeditions and it gets to a bit of micro management when I need to split and regroup different parts of the group
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Yonder on October 09, 2015, 11:48:02 AM
It would be nice to have shore leave conditional orders.

Triggers:
Deployment time 80% of Intended
Deployment time 90% of Intended
Deployment time 100% of Intended

Actions:
Return to Colony or Recreation Ship (if small enough) for shore leave
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Yonder on October 11, 2015, 02:28:23 PM
Because of the long and variable turn processing times it would be great if there was some sort of gentle chime when turn processing had completed and it was time for your input again.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: swarm_sadist on October 12, 2015, 01:14:48 PM

1) Have construction cycles operate on a fixed scheduled such as 1 week, then have the financial and mining reports report based on per construction cycle, instead of how much was made last increment. That way the construction cycle would happen every 7 days (or 5 currently) on a regular schedule on the same day at the same time, and the reports would show numbers that reflect per cycle, as opposed to whenever the computer stopped the simulation.

2) Retrograde Orbits. There are several moons that move CW, such as Triton, as well as several asteroids. Found a retrograde orbit! Although I think it is just the planet orbiting the star faster than the moon can orbit the planet.

3) Eccentric orbits. While I can understand not doing most of the planets (whose eccentricity is usually less than 1%) but dwarf planets like Pluto, Eris and Sedna can go pretty far out. Pluto goes from inside Neptune (4.4 bkm) to well outside that (7.3 bkm), Eris goes from 5.7 billion to 14 billion and Sedna goes from 11 billion to 140 billion (55 c*days compared to Pluto's 5 c*hours).
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Sematary on October 12, 2015, 02:16:12 PM
Because of the long and variable turn processing times it would be great if there was some sort of gentle chime when turn processing had completed and it was time for your input again.
I would actually like to second that, if its not too hard to code in. We joke about reading books or doing various other things while waiting for turns to process but some sort of notification (possibly that we can turn on and off) would be good.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Barkhorn on October 12, 2015, 09:11:16 PM
2) Retrograde orbits. I had no idea that Venus and Uranus went in the opposite direction of every other planet. There are several moons that move CW as well, such as Triton.
You're confusing revolution around the sun for rotation around the body's central axis.

All planets orbit the sun counter-clockwise.  Venus and Uranus rotate differently than the rest of the planets.  Venus rotates the opposite direction than the rest of the planets, and Uranus rotates perpendicularly to the rest of the planets.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: MarcAFK on October 12, 2015, 09:57:50 PM
You're confusing revolution around the sun for rotation around the body's central axis.

All planets orbit the sun counter-clockwise.  Venus and Uranus rotate differently than the rest of the planets.  Venus rotates the opposite direction than the rest of the planets, and Uranus rotates perpendicularly to the rest of the planets.
You're correct, the only significant body apart from asteroids which has retrograde orbit is Triton.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: swarm_sadist on October 13, 2015, 08:11:13 AM
My mistake, it sounded strange to say it. I guess I should of read that more carefully, with more than 2 hours of sleep.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Yonder on October 13, 2015, 03:55:40 PM
There should be a shore leave order like this is a "Begin Overhaul" order. Alternatively/in addition to that in the repeat/wait area of the orders there should be a "Wait for completed shore leave" option, like there is currently a "Wait for X seconds" option.

I would like to be able to say "Ok Freighters, load infrastructure, drop it off, go back, refuel, resupply, have your shore leave, and repeat".
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Yonder on October 13, 2015, 04:02:42 PM
It's my understanding that Ballistic Missile submarines, and maybe some other vessels, have two crews. This is because the ships themselves need far less downtime that the human crews do. Something similar to that would be nice as well.

On the one hand you could go all the way: Actually have two officers and two crew allotments, tracking the two crew grades, morale, and locations. But I think that a simpler way would be sufficient: Keep a single officer for simplicity (sucks to be him) and have a "switch crew" command pull out crew from the available crew pool as if a new ship was built, then push the old crew into the crew pool as if the ship have been scrapped.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Rich.h on October 20, 2015, 11:47:14 AM
Could we get a tech addition that makes engineering more efficient? We already have the tech line that allows engines to use less fuel per hour, if we could get something similar but in reverse so an engineering space offers a greater reduction in AFR. At the moment for my current game overhauls are becoming the biggest micromanagement bugbear for me. I understand I can just turn them off, but I do like the feature as it adds some RP factor to things. Sadly though when I find that my new black magic like tech is just as easy to break I have to wonder exactly what all the yellow shirts are doing down in the engine room all day.

Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: 83athom on October 20, 2015, 11:54:41 AM
Or, something similar to what Rich.h said, a module that only effects failure rate. We have Engineering Spaces that affect both AFR and DC and we have the Damage Control techs that affect just the DC (but does nothing to afr or maintenance storage), so why not a tech line that does the same thing as the Damage Control except with failure rates. Like the DC, it would probably be 3 HS and affect it multiple (variable per tech) times as much as engineering spaces, but it wouldn't add to damage control or add maintenance storage (possibly).
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Din182 on October 20, 2015, 01:06:07 PM
I would really like to see a new fleet order system. Some way to change the destinations a fleet visits in a system without having to remove all the later orders would be awesome.

Maybe you could make it the jumps had to be in a static order, but you could choose a system that the fleet will be in, and add/remove destinations, and even reorder them without moving them past a jump order on either side.

So, say you had these orders for a Geo Survey ship, starting in Sol:
Code: [Select]
Standard Transit Proxima Centauri Jump PointRefuel from colony Proxima Centauri IIIStandard Transit Alpha Centauri Jump Point
But then you realize you didn't survey Asteroid #276. It would be awesome if you could choose that you want to change the fleet orders in the Proxima Centauri system, and just insert Geological Survey Asteroid #276 right in the middle of the orders, instead of having to remove later orders, add the new order, then readd the later orders.

And then now you have:
Code: [Select]
Standard Transit Proxima Centauri Jump PointRefuel from colony Proxima Centauri IIIGeological Survey Asteroid #276Standard Transit Alpha Centauri Jump Point
But suddenly you notice that it would make sense to survey the asteroid first, then refuel and head on to Alpha Centauri. You could also reorder the intra-system orders, similar to how you can reorder the industry or research queues. You'd need some check to prevent the order from moving past a jump order, so you could get this:
Code: [Select]
Standard Transit Proxima Centauri Jump PointGeological Survey Asteroid #276Refuel from colony Proxima Centauri IIIStandard Transit Alpha Centauri Jump Pointbut not this:
Code: [Select]
Geological Survey Asteroid #276Standard Transit Proxima Centauri Jump PointRefuel from colony Proxima Centauri IIIStandard Transit Alpha Centauri Jump Point
since I'm sure that would break the game.
And then having the ability to remove intra-system orders the same way you can add them.

I'm not sure how difficult it would be to code in, since I'm not sure how you programmed the move orders in the first place, but this would be an awesome functionality, since I tend to plan my orders fairly far into the future, and it's always annoying having to reconstruct them every time I want to make a change early on.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: linkxsc on October 28, 2015, 08:19:11 PM
^ Never actually did the math to check, but if thats true, then damn, thats a lot of duranium that goes basically to waste. (Or neutronium with later armors)
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: MarcAFK on October 29, 2015, 12:45:14 AM
Oh damn, I'm completely wrong, somehow I've missed the messages saying how much Duranium is recovered from each scrapped ship, some quick tests show you get back about the same as with any other system or component( between a quarter and a fifth)
Edit: I spoke way too soon, something weird is going on which I need to put up in the bugs thread.

Edit:  here's something related to the bug I noticed above. When a ship is refit you should get back any components which aren't in the new design, in most cases at minimum you save gallicite by completely scrapping a ship and making a new one compared to refitting one with new engines.
And lately I've been thinking about how unrealistically cheap small components are to research. In real life fighters are amongst the most expensive technologically advanced components of warfare.
Perhaps anything below a certain size should have a multiplier to research and possibly to build too.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garfunkel on November 01, 2015, 09:06:59 AM
Add "water" option in terraforming. This would both enable to creation of more realistic atmosphere, including water vapors and eventually creating a hydrosphere on a planet. Turning a normal planet into a water world should also be possible, though I guess it's more of an cosmetic effect.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: 83athom on November 01, 2015, 09:18:20 AM
Add "water" option in terraforming. This would both enable to creation of more realistic atmosphere, including water vapors and eventually creating a hydrosphere on a planet. Turning a normal planet into a water world should also be possible, though I guess it's more of an cosmetic effect.
There already is, although it doesn't do much to the hydrosphere at the moment I believe.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: MarcAFK on November 01, 2015, 04:44:13 PM
Water is a greenhouse gas (I think) but hydro sphere is only capable of freezing or thawing, otherwise it's unchangable.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: IanD on November 02, 2015, 05:45:48 AM
Would it be possible to program the NPRs to stop "feeding" the Star Swarm, just jumped into a system with two comets, but 1322 soldiers, 138 workers and a Queen!  :o   All because the local NPR has kept feeding in a few ships at a time. Could NPR meets Star Swarm = need 10X more ships than sent last time?

Ian

Edit: It's worse than that the NPR goes "where is there a place to build a jump gate, Oh! There" and sends an unaccompanied Gate builder into a Star Swarm system. What it should do is:
1) Where is there somewhere to build a gate?
Yes, XYZ system
2) Are there enemy forces present?
Yes
3) Do not send gate builder.

I would have thought the threat rating could be used as the basis of such a mechanic

Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: MarcAFK on November 05, 2015, 06:06:42 AM
Please add a checkbox to disable the display of fleet names, I know I can turn fleets off altogether, but it would be so handy if I could keep the dots, after all there is the handy rightclick menu which shows what fleets are at each point.
An example.
Currently I have 2 options: fleets on:
(http://i.imgur.com/NPgmH2C.jpg)
Or fleets off:
It took ages to find that bloody ship. With fleet dots on it should look like this:
(http://i.imgur.com/Aqvx5VZ.jpg)
Edit: I need to shrink these images sorry XD
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Paul M on November 06, 2015, 02:34:28 AM
You can turn off show next order, show next time and show velocity...leaving you with the ship/fleet dot and name so far as I know.  Basically what you want I'd think.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: MarcAFK on November 06, 2015, 02:48:06 AM
The names still all stack together becoming unreadable, btw those images do have next order, and time and distance turned off.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Yonder on November 06, 2015, 06:14:07 AM
On a related note, I would love to be able to turn off visibility just for my civilian fleets, or better yet turn off the fleet names just for my civilian fleets. I have Mercury, Luna, Earth, and Mars inhabited, so it's pretty much impossible to read the fleet names for any of my own fleets in the inner Sol system.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: 83athom on November 06, 2015, 06:42:11 AM
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Yonder on November 06, 2015, 09:29:25 AM
Oh boy! I only checked Display and Display 2. Thanks a bunch!
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: linkxsc on November 09, 2015, 01:53:11 PM
Nah forget that old stupid request, heres a new 1.

Ability to change the background color.
For those of us with bad eyes, and eye strain problems. We already have the ability to on the "intelligence window" tune the colors of the various contacts onscreen.

Perhaps something in the options menu to change the background color of the system map. The deep blue/purple is murder on my eyes personally, and I can only look at it for ~30 mins at a time (even having bits of it around ship design windows and such can cause me migraines.) As such, I spend most of my "playtime" with the system map minimized, and only open it if I need to fight or something.

Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Jumpp on November 12, 2015, 07:09:46 PM
It'd be nice if, in the Environment/GMC tab of the Population and Production display, Planetary Albedo were reported to three decimal places rather than the current two. The "ice has melted" message reports three decimal places, but the dialog only gives two, and so when there hasn't been an ice melt message, I kind of have to guess.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: chrislocke2000 on November 16, 2015, 07:07:35 AM
Given the change in jump point creation and the extended distances being travelled I think it's high time that the scientists of Earth pulled them thumbs out and designed some life pods with more than a two week endurance...
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: 83athom on November 16, 2015, 07:48:42 AM
I believe people will evacuate to the Emergency Cryo module (if one is available) in the event of *boom* and will last a lot longer, but don't quote me on that.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Jumpp on November 19, 2015, 09:01:47 AM

First, everyone in the fleet does an ordinary Load Ordnance. Then, after that, everyone fills whatever remaining magazine space they may have with any missiles that happen to be lying around, entirely without regard to the ideal loadout for the ship.

Great for when you want to move all the ammo from point A to point B. Much less fiddly than manually filling every collier.

Fleet Panel Quick Button (like, along the bottom): Reload

Reloads all ships in the fleet from colliers in the fleet. Much less fiddly than double-clicking on each fighting ship in the fleet, clicking on the ordnance management tab, and hitting reload from colliers.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: 83athom on November 19, 2015, 10:11:37 AM
Ordinance; this is already partially a thing. If you have a standard loadout with a missile of every SERIES you have they will just reload anything (so putting a number of what you want then 1 of every series you'll get what you want then anything extra).

Reload; I believe ships can do that automatically if there are any colliers in the fleet. "When a fleet reloads magazines during a turn, they will reload from the magazines in any collier in the fleet."
But I do agree there could be a bit more automation in this like a conditional. Condition; "Ammunition less than xx%" Order; "Reload from nearest collier/colony within 4 jumps" (4 jumps wont be an issue as Steve is expanding the pathfinding to possibly endless but this is an example like current conditional orders) (anyone else think I like using parenthesis (cause I use them a lot)).
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Jumpp on November 19, 2015, 10:30:05 AM
Well of course it's already partially at thing. The suggestion is about making it entirely a thing.

Suppose, for instance, you've got "Harpoon" missiles of size 5, and "Nike" missiles of size 1.  You have five colliers, each with a magazine of 700. They're set to load 100 Harpoons and 200 Nikes.

You've got a colony in the rear where you're manufacturing ammo. You want to move all that ammo to a depot nearer the front. That colony has got 3500 Nikes.

Your colliers can do that job in a single go, but you'll have to manually load them. "Load Ordnance" will get them to load 200 Nikes each. You'll have to click on the first ship, tab over to the ordnance management tab, select "Population" in the drop-down, click on the "1000" radio button, and then double-click on the pile of Nikes. The process is a little simpler for the remaining ships, but it's still tedious.

The point of "Load Any Ordnance" is that these colliers would just automatically fill their holds.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Jumpp on November 23, 2015, 01:18:26 PM
Suggestion: Waaaaaay up the tech tree, a black hole-related installation that works as a sort of extremely crude terraformer. It's like an ordinary terraforming installation except:

1. It only removes atmo. It can't add any.
2. It operates at about 100x the speed of an ordinary terraformer.
3. It targets all available gases, in proportion to their part of the whole. (If the atmosphere started out as 100 atmospheres of CO2 and 0.1 atmospheres of Methane, this thing would reduce it to 10 atmospheres of CO2 and 0.01 atmospheres of Methane along the way toward 0 of both.)

Call it the "Venus 3000" maybe.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Cassaralla on November 25, 2015, 10:16:10 AM
Suggestion:  A 'Designate Hull for Disposal in support of Fleet Training Exercise' option.

Basically designate old, obsolete or too damaged hulls for target practice.  Remove the crews, ordnance and perhaps a percentage of minerals used to simulate the scrapping of worthwhile items on board, and then an order to remote control them on a random path so other units can take pot shots at them for training purposes.
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: linkxsc on November 27, 2015, 09:11:11 PM
New stupid idea post.

Ability to mount "fuel tanks" in box launchers to extend small ship range if needed.
Wut?

Yes, so lets do a bit of figuring. Say you're making a fighter, and the fighter has say 5 size 2 launchers on it as its main weapon. It also has 1 small fuel tank aboard as its fuel store giving it 10,000l of fuel, and a given range based on that.
Now most fighters have no qualms about that size fuel load, but sometimes I'd like a little bit more... but the fighters are already built, and I can't travel back to base to pick up new 1s. what to do, what to do?

Well if you figure a size 2 missile as all fuel... thats 5,000 fuel that could be loaded into a missile "hardpoint" to inject back into the plane for extended range. For those times when you might need to chase the enemy for a bit.
Or perhaps to give a little credence to fighters loading shields, and being able to maintain a fuel load.
And heck, if I swap out 1 missile on a built fighter that goes on deployment, for an extra 50% range.... that certainly doesn't seem too terrible at times.

Probably not something most players would get any use out of, but it might offer some of us that little bit of extra to work with at times.
This mainly comes up due to fighters I wish sometimes I could launch from farther away to go after some targets, than their standard fuel load would support.
Or in the case of trying to ferry them to new bases, without having to haul them in carriers.

Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: Thundercraft on November 30, 2015, 03:23:19 AM
Suggestion: Waaaaaay up the tech tree, a black hole-related installation that works as a sort of extremely crude terraformer. It's like an ordinary terraforming installation except:

1. It only removes atmo. It can't add any.
2. It operates at about 100x the speed of an ordinary terraformer.
3. It targets all available gases, in proportion to their part of the whole. (If the atmosphere started out as 100 atmospheres of CO2 and 0.1 atmospheres of Methane, this thing would reduce it to 10 atmospheres of CO2 and 0.01 atmospheres of Methane along the way toward 0 of both.)

Call it the "Venus 3000" maybe.

+1 Vote! Nice suggestion!

Actually, I had long considered that a wormhole used to siphon off excess gasses would be a wonderfully efficient way to terraform worlds.

Your idea is to eliminate excess gasses. But I was thinking that a tiny wormhole may allow the transfer of gasses from a hot world with a thick atmosphere, like Venus, to a cold world with little of if any atmosphere, like Mars. The atmospheric pressure should push it through to escape to the low-pressure world.

You'd be terraforming two worlds at once, limited by your tech level, the aperture of the worm hole(s), and the energy required. Though, perhaps there would be risks or downsides? Maybe the radiation may do something to your population? Lower population growth and happiness? Or maybe there's a chance it would explode or something?

Regardless, I think the game really needs better method(s) to terraform with a higher tech level. Currently, it seems too slow.

Why can't we crash icy comets into a planet for liquids and/or gasses? The obstacle would be tugging or pushing the comets into an orbit that impacts a world. Of course, there could be downsides, particularly if the planet is inhabited. And for the short term, it may generate dust which cools the planet for a few years.

I've found articles such as "Icy comets serve as storks for life on Earth." They typically contain water, ammonia, methanol and carbon dioxide, among other ingredients. And the impact may have yielded the energy to drive prebiotic chemistry.

There are other possibilities, too. I found an article about encasing a small planet or a moon in a shell, such as steel and Kevlar fiber.  (See "Shell-Worlds: How Humanity Could Terraform Small Planets" on Space.com.) It would allow us to pressurize an atmosphere and make it Earth-like. Access to space would be through air-locks. And one could build spaceports and industries on the outside that takes advantage of the vacuum of space. That said, it'd be terribly vulnerable to an enemy attack...

I'm also reminded of options in Master of Orion II. Aside from the usual terraforming, players could build a Planetary Radiation Shield, which changes a "Radiated" planet to "Barren". (Also reduces bombardment damage by 5.) High up the tech tree, players could use Artificial Planet tech to compress/convert an asteroid field into a planet.

Hmm... Maybe, eventually, shield tech could allow one to build a shield around a planet just strong enough to hold or reinforcing a weak atmosphere? Or maybe they could help protect the fragile artificial shell and atmosphere of a Shell-World?
Title: Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
Post by: ExChairman on December 02, 2015, 05:11:35 AM
Would bee nice if "Asign Parent Headquarter" only were for the units on the planets.
As now when building the HQ usaly is on the bottom of the list and that list can bee long when you have alot of HQs.