Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
91
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Last post by QuakeIV on August 08, 2018, 03:04:57 PM »
I think the main issue is the full stop between orders.  Staying at the same speed and heading until able to react to the next order would be a bit more believable, achieve more or less the same thing and hopefully be easier to implement.
92
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Last post by Garfunkel on August 08, 2018, 02:49:46 PM »
Agreed.

But that would require that Aurora "remembers" the old order even after you remove or change it. Not sure if things are set-up in a way that would make it easy for Steve to implement such a feature.
93
Forum Issues / Re: Show unread posts since last visit
« Last post by Erik Luken on August 08, 2018, 12:47:43 PM »
There is nothing in your permissions that would prevent it.

I see a number of errors in the log, but not the one you are experiencing. :(

I'll dig around more.
94
Post after action reports too :)
95
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Last post by Jorgen_CAB on August 08, 2018, 11:41:35 AM »
IMO the biggest issue is what happens during delay... if orders change from "keep a distance of 200k" to "keep a distance of 300k", at no time should the task group sit idle and allow a slower enemy to close the range at will.

Agreed, a better behavior would be to continue with the previous order(s) until the delay has expired.

John

This I agree with... if there is an issue with order delay that should be fixed not the delay itself. There should never be a case where zero delay is a must to play the game.

In my opinion having some delay always being the case seem more interesting overall and also mean that crew grade and officers competence always will matter.
96
So, I'm hoping I'm posting this in the correct place, but we have started a large multi-player game of astra imperia and our making this thread to detail any and all feedback we have on the game.
97
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Last post by sloanjh on August 08, 2018, 07:33:04 AM »
IMO the biggest issue is what happens during delay... if orders change from "keep a distance of 200k" to "keep a distance of 300k", at no time should the task group sit idle and allow a slower enemy to close the range at will.

Agreed, a better behavior would be to continue with the previous order(s) until the delay has expired.

John
98
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Last post by waresky on August 08, 2018, 05:35:26 AM »
2009.zzz...2010....2011....2012....2013....2014....2015...2016....2017...2018...20xx...2120!! Aurora C# ALPHA Day.

:D
:P
99
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Last post by Iranon on August 08, 2018, 04:42:10 AM »
IMO the biggest issue is what happens during delay... if orders change from "keep a distance of 200k" to "keep a distance of 300k", at no time should the task group sit idle and allow a slower enemy to close the range at will.
100
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Last post by chrislocke2000 on August 08, 2018, 02:00:18 AM »

It would be good but don’t think possible from a game play perspective given relative speeds of ships v for example beam weapon ranges. For gauss fighters you could end up never being able to get in range and for longer ranger beams it could be a real nerf as you miss chance for multiple shots.


Why... this is only reaction to new orders. This has nothing to do with initiative.

Trying to change ranges in a beam fight where you have order delays is very painful. I have bad memories of getting too close to swarm queen once and getting a large chunk of my fleet trashed before being able to pull range. Delays in giving a fire order to actually firing can be similarly painful.
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]