Post reply

Warning - while you were reading 19 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

Verification:
What is the answer to life, universe, and everything?:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Please read the rules before you post!


Topic Summary

Posted by: vorpal+5
« on: Today at 01:13:51 AM »

Has it been considered to add more surprises (and FUN) to the colonization efforts by adding anomalies and oddities? Basically a system body can have from 0 to 3 oddities that might be good or bad. Some will require efforts to deal with, some are permanent or passive.

Nothing super original compared to others games, but this is akin to the concept of 'Goody Huts' for Sid Meier Civilization. Really, I think all Sci-fi 4X games have this kind of stuff on their planets (Endless Space, Stellaris, Galactic Civ III).

This can require a bit of efforts in writing so they are diverse enough, but I'm sure a lot of us would gladly help.

Can also be seen as an extension of the current ruins feature but more diverse. It can be about a dangerous semi-intelligent animal in a jungle world, some left over nanite cloud in a chasm of an asteroid, a strange (abandoned?) pyramid in a desert world, etc. The more the merrier. It would add mystery and thrill and make system body more unique also.

There is no need to create a complex 'event system' to deal with these oddities. Either you leave it alone and it add a passive effect or you click on the 'handle the issue' button and it solves the issue. In both cases, you spend (or earn if a good event) resources (colonists, money, supply etc.).

"Ah yes, this planet. A nice one now with 10 millions colonists and 100 industries, and good corbinite concentration. But these seemingly intelligent octopus in the sea are posing problems as they tend to mind-control unwary colonists."

Passive effect (per month): Loses 0.1% of colonists total
Solving1 (button A): A massive effort (cost 50.000 money) can be undertaken to get rid of these octopuses in the sea by adding a targeted neurotoxin in the water.
Solving2 (button B): We can put these octopuses (pi?) in a natural reserve and study them (cost 250.000 money). This will prevent any nefarious activity while giving us a chance to study them (1% a month to gain 500 RP in Biology)

Etc :)



Posted by: Jovus
« on: June 15, 2019, 09:45:24 AM »

It has probably been brought up before, but this thread is too big for easy searching, so I apologize but I'm going to bring it up again.

It would be unutterably awesome if C# involved some way to customize interrupts without tweaking the DB itself. Turning off maintenance interrupts or fuel interrupts, turning on population unrest interrupts, etc., along with the ability to change your mind while still in the game.

Even more unutterably awesome would be the ability to customize interrupt priority by source. For example, I could say, "Interrupt when maintenance failures happen, but not from this ship. Tell me when the population on this world increases in unrest, but not the others. Don't bother me about ground combat on these three worlds."
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: June 15, 2019, 04:27:02 AM »

TLDR: missile range should be more heavily restricted on most powerful engines instead of difference being 50m,12km/s vs 70m,10km/s it should be like more like 500k,12km/s vs 10m,10km/s

Missile ranges and fuel calculation have changed in C# Aurora (see the changes list). I'm finding in my campaigns that the only missile designs using max power are short-range AMMs
Posted by: Doren
« on: June 15, 2019, 04:06:35 AM »

Here's a couple of suggestions from me.

Sizing
Something that irked me in Aurora was how cheap it is to research very small modules which are pretty much always put on fighters and missiles.

Maybe the research cost should start costing more if you are trying to make really small things.  Right now missile and fighter engines are basically free to research since game calculates the cost based on how large the engines is (with addition of the engine power of course).  I think it would make designing fighter engines a bit more interesting since now you would have to think twice if you would research specialized equipment on each design due to research costs.

It kind of makes sense that cutting size of a very powerful engine by half is going to be very difficult process

I would love to see there to be a double curve on equipment size cost calculation.  Even with sensors and fire control.

Missile designing
I have to say that I'm not an expert missile user and I mostly play on Nuclear thermal -> Ion tech so I do not have a lot experience with Mag pulse and later tech.

I think when ever I'm designing a missile I think I've never thought "I should not go max engine power" and I kind of feel like it is a bit problematic that more power seems to be always better for missile designs.  Very fast missiles should have really bad range.

I kind of feel like missiles right now are a bit too much of a all or nothing weapon.  Either you completely annihilate your enemy with them or the opponent has too strong PD and you cannot get through.

I was wondering if missile designs could use some more diversity.  Right now there seems to be 3 types of missiles: “Torpedoes”, Target Missiles and Long range missiles
Torpedoes are basically missiles shot at so close range that VB Aurora does not allow PD to trigger on them on the 5s pulse.  This mechanic is going to change in C# Aurora as far as I've read change log
Targeted Missiles are missiles that are being shot at the enemy who are in range of a sensor and fire control.  These can wary in range from couple million km to a hundreds of million kms.
Long Range Missiles are two-staged missiles being shot at waypoint and have usually billions of kms range.

Most of the designed missiles are Targeted Missiles and range is usually picked by enemy sensor range to out range their missiles.  Depending on opponent's tech level this can be easy with no compromises or it can be hard with a lot of compromises.  Usually a lot of compromises might lead to designing Long Range Missiles.
I kind of feel that it is way too easy to design generic missile with +50m km range with fast speed and good warhead strength.  I feel like it should be a lot harder to break 1-10m range with one staged missiles if they are max power and still have significant warhead.  This would mean that most of the +10m range missiles would have to be two-stage missiles and their launchers would eat a lot more space on the ships or they would have to accept being a lot closer to the enemy ships to be able to mount as many smaller launchers.

So all in all a hefty nerf to missile ranges which would require tweaking the power modifier fuel consumption or perhaps how much each fuel unit would give fuel to missile.  Maybe agility could also play a bit bigger role on the overall hit chance though I'm a bit afraid to touch it due to AMM

I kind of feel like it should be possible to make faster missiles than what you can do now easier but compromising heavily on warhead and range.  (I think range would be in couple hundred thousands of km).  These kind of missiles would be more of a support missiles instead of primary weapon type: fast enough to be very hard to PD down but not strong enough to complelty annihilate opponent just weaken them before closing in for turrets.
I hope to also nerf PD so that they should struggle against very fast but weak missiles or they should take significant amount of research and space on the ship.  I think this is kind of happening right now if you fire AMM missiles at PD ships.

TLDR: missile range should be more heavily restricted on most powerful engines instead of difference being 50m,12km/s vs 70m,10km/s it should be like more like 500k,12km/s vs 10m,10km/s
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: June 04, 2019, 09:16:17 AM »

I would like to take a new crack at the mothballing of ships after I have played some with the new Rule the Waves 2 game, a game which share many similarities with Aurora in that it is a ship design game foremost.

I really think that having a similiar system of reserve, active and mothballing would work really well... especially with the new system and how training is handled.

Here is a version I think would add to the game in terms of dedcisions you would need to make.

Mothballing
Any ship in this status will not require maintenance and its clock will slowly degrade over time but will never actually have any failures. This means that if you mothball a ship for a very long time you will have to spend some time to refit and get it ready for duty.

A mothballed ship will quickly loose all its training until you basically only have raw recruit that have to man the ship once you activate it.



Reserve
Any ship in this status will only be doing routine maintenance and the crew will be ordered to service one in a while to do drills or it might be part of the occasional naval exercises.

These ship would pay normal maintenance but would have a slow degrading of fleet training and will over time reach down to raw recruit status but that would take a very long time.

Taking a ship from reserve to active should be equivalent as taking a ship from overhaul into active in the current game.

Calling up a mothballed ship to active service should require the ship to be overhauled to at least a certain degree before brought into service again.


Active
These ships are actively in duty and ready to do battle at any time. They will do regular fleet drills and perform patrol duties.

Maintenance clock of these ship would run maybe 30% quicker than what is normal today.


Age
I also think that old ships should begin to age and its maintenance clock run quicker. If you upgrade the ships some of that effect should be halted but eventually you should need to scrap ships due to age alone. You will never really be able to replace a ships hull structure, should be prohibitively expensive.

I also think armour should be MUCH more expensive to upgrade than it currently is.


I think that ships status could then be selected with the new fleet management system in the same way you handle the fleet training system. It is just that each type Fleet Training, Active, Reserve, Mothball will have different effect on the ships.

There is a real decision to make in what status you want a specific ship to be which is an interesting one, in my opinion any way...
Posted by: Garfunkel
« on: June 03, 2019, 01:55:03 PM »

You can see the smallest possible engine size here:
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg102620#msg102620

on this chart:
Posted by: JustAnotherDude
« on: June 02, 2019, 03:28:23 PM »

This is already a thing, Xeno.
Posted by: xenoscepter
« on: June 02, 2019, 03:25:43 PM »

@Steve Walmsey

Hey Steve, could we have really small engines? Like >1 HS? Maybe 0.1 HS Minimum? The reason for this request is that I'd like some Micro Engines for Fighters. Not that it would make the game better or whatever, but I would just like Micro Engines. If no, then cool.

Cheers!
Posted by: Hazard
« on: June 01, 2019, 03:27:53 AM »

While I agree that conditional orders could be improved I'm not sure that nesting them in higher commands is the way to go. I think being able to put conditional orders into the order queue would be better, as then you can do some clever order stacking for partially automating a lot of ships.
Posted by: 01010100
« on: May 31, 2019, 07:03:05 AM »

Quote from: theoderic link=topic=9841.  msg114734#msg114734 date=1559303794
Been thinking the exact same thing actually.    Create generalized orders for entire HQ / Taskgroup-command which gets copied (once) for all sub-TGs.    This would have the additional advantages (obvious to me) of setting your entire fleet to go somewhere or do something you want.   

I wouldn't actually copy the orders to the lower level TG's since this would run into issues when you add and then again remove TG's from command levels or when you change orders at higher levels, but just in the code where the TG checks its conditional orders also make it check up the hierarchy.   So the orders only ever exist at the command level you've added them to but the TG's also check higher command levels whenever they are checking their standing/conditional orders. 

Quote
Another possibility would be to have an organizational branch TG (special type) that are only used for order creation and management (no ships).   It would also be nice if leaders who are assigned to superior formations give partial bonuses (synergy) to lower formations in the command chain, but that would just require changing how things are now in the game, or is this perhaps already implemented without my knowledge?

Something like this is indeed already being added to C# Aurora with Admin Commands, the suggestion would be to let those Admin Commands contain standing/conditional orders which then apply to the TG's under them.
Posted by: theoderic
« on: May 31, 2019, 06:56:34 AM »

Quote from: 01010100 link=topic=9841. msg114732#msg114732 date=1559300471
Quote from: JustAnotherDude link=topic=9841.  msg114704#msg114704 date=1559066294
First things first, though, two more conditional slots or so would be a blessing.   As of now you can't have a grav survey ship both refuel, resupply and overhaul automatically, which is not pressing but annoying. 

I think my earlier suggestion of letting taskgroups take standing/conditional orders from higher up the hierarchy solves this problem in a better way.   Suppose you have a command hierarchy like this:

Navy HQ
-Commercial HQ
--Exploration HQ
---Geo Survey HQ
----Geosurvey TG 1
----Geosurvey TG 2
----.  .  . 
---Grav Survey HQ
----Grav survey TG 1
----Grav survey TG 2
----.  .  . 

Then at the Commercial HQ you'd set the refuel order, at the Exploration HQ you'd set the resupply and overhaul order, at the Geo Survey HQ you'd set the geosurvey orders, and at the Grav Survey HQ you'd set the grav survey orders.   The added advantage of this system is that once you've set it up you don't have to bother with it anymore, if you've built a new geosurvey ship then all you'd have to do is assign it to the Geo Survey HQ and it'll automatically pick up the necessary orders.

Been thinking the exact same thing actually.  Create generalized orders for entire HQ / Taskgroup-command which gets copied (once) for all sub-TGs.  This would have the additional advantages (obvious to me) of setting your entire fleet to go somewhere or do something you want.

Another possibility would be to have an organizational branch TG (special type) that are only used for order creation and management (no ships).  It would also be nice if leaders who are assigned to superior formations give partial bonuses (synergy) to lower formations in the command chain, but that would just require changing how things are now in the game, or is this perhaps already implemented without my knowledge?

(extra cool if leaders with compatible personality types gave better bonuses to eachother imo)
Posted by: 01010100
« on: May 31, 2019, 06:01:11 AM »

Quote from: JustAnotherDude link=topic=9841. msg114704#msg114704 date=1559066294
First things first, though, two more conditional slots or so would be a blessing.  As of now you can't have a grav survey ship both refuel, resupply and overhaul automatically, which is not pressing but annoying.

I think my earlier suggestion of letting taskgroups take standing/conditional orders from higher up the hierarchy solves this problem in a better way.  Suppose you have a command hierarchy like this:

Navy HQ
-Commercial HQ
--Exploration HQ
---Geo Survey HQ
----Geosurvey TG 1
----Geosurvey TG 2
----. . .
---Grav Survey HQ
----Grav survey TG 1
----Grav survey TG 2
----. . .

Then at the Commercial HQ you'd set the refuel order, at the Exploration HQ you'd set the resupply and overhaul order, at the Geo Survey HQ you'd set the geosurvey orders, and at the Grav Survey HQ you'd set the grav survey orders.  The added advantage of this system is that once you've set it up you don't have to bother with it anymore, if you've built a new geosurvey ship then all you'd have to do is assign it to the Geo Survey HQ and it'll automatically pick up the necessary orders.
Posted by: alex_brunius
« on: May 31, 2019, 03:23:54 AM »

Too late! I have been watching RTW2 developer updates for a long time and it does look really interesting. I want to play it and I am trying my best not to give in that impulse or Aurora development will probably go on hold for a while  :)

The developers of RTW/RTW2 have amazing knowledge about the time period and great attention for detail. Unfortunately they don't seem to have an equally deep understand of physics which leads to some very odd calculation under the hood for example for with their armor calculations being all sorts of messed up.

http://nws-online.proboards.com/thread/2341/larger-displacement-result-lighter-armor
http://nws-online.proboards.com/thread/2345/armor-large-ships-scale-volume


That is what I love the best about Aurora 4x. The tight connection to pretty plausible physics which create interesting design trade offs ( Not that RTW2 don't have design trade offs, but it just feels wrong when a 50% larger ship using same armor thickness has half the weight in armor ).
Posted by: TMaekler
« on: May 29, 2019, 10:20:51 AM »

Unfortunately, it is more complicated than that. How many systems away do you allow the fleet to go? How about an asteroid 100 AU out? How far would you go if there was only 1000 tons of the mineral? What about if it was a long way and only slightly better than the current location? How does the miner know what minerals are important to you? How about systems next to known alien systems? etc.

The AI can deal with those sort of issues for NPRs, because NPRs have strict controls on deployments, what they can and can't build and they assign values to systems and bodies on an empire-wide basis. In many cases, the 'smarter conditional orders' requests have so many caveats they aren't practical unless the player accepts restrictions on behaviour in the same ways as NPRs.
Maybe adding mineral demands in the civilian transport-transfer screen might be a solution for this. One then can let the civilians construct asteroid miners and they do the collecting and deliver to those planets.
Posted by: Hazard
« on: May 29, 2019, 10:15:54 AM »

Unfortunately, it is more complicated than that. How many systems away do you allow the fleet to go? How about an asteroid 100 AU out? How far would you go if there was only 1000 tons of the mineral? What about if it was a long way and only slightly better than the current location? How does the miner know what minerals are important to you? How about systems next to known alien systems? etc.

The AI can deal with those sort of issues for NPRs, because NPRs have strict controls on deployments, what they can and can't build and they assign values to systems and bodies on an empire-wide basis. In many cases, the 'smarter conditional orders' requests have so many caveats they aren't practical unless the player accepts restrictions on behaviour in the same ways as NPRs.

Could this not be covered on the same basis as the geo/grav survey conditional orders?

It doesn't really matter if the instruction isn't particularly clever if you can just bar high risk systems like you already can in C#, and otherwise it'll just go for the closest. Anything that's valuable enough as an asteroid mine to really matter would be the sort of thing to get a CMC or an automated mining colony anyway.
Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55