Post reply

Warning - while you were reading 39 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:
Are you human?:

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

Please read the rules before you post!


Topic Summary

Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: August 12, 2019, 02:01:17 PM »

Sorry for the question, its just too many things to read through to understand if that is possible.

Will I be able in C# to establish a deep-space station on jump point with recreation and maintenance facilities to hold dozens of weapon platforms (1000ton ships with smallest engine to be able just to leave the hangar when enemy comes from jump point)?
Im just thinking of a defense force that can stand on one place for almost forever with minimum micro required while having a good punch.

I would probably do it as group of ships/stations, but yes that is possible.
Posted by: Shuul
« on: August 12, 2019, 01:50:15 PM »

Sorry for the question, its just too many things to read through to understand if that is possible.

Will I be able in C# to establish a deep-space station on jump point with recreation and maintenance facilities to hold dozens of weapon platforms (1000ton ships with smallest engine to be able just to leave the hangar when enemy comes from jump point)?
Im just thinking of a defense force that can stand on one place for almost forever with minimum micro required while having a good punch.
Posted by: Profugo Barbatus
« on: August 08, 2019, 07:22:44 PM »

That would add complexity to the ground combat that I don't really think adds great benefit to it. There's absolutely no way your stationing enough troops on a planet that you actually need to station them on a different continent to make space. Given that, if any of the planet is comprised of jungle rifts, I'd just want to pack all my forces into there. I believe that's part of why the concept is 'dominant terrain', as opposed to literally monobiome worlds. If it has a significant jungle component, then its abstracted that planetary garrisons and defenses are focused in these defensible areas.

Any terrain past that is open to your RP needs. Just because the dominant terrain is jungle rifts, doesn't mean you can't RP the planet as also having verdant, green plains, prime for sowing crops.
Posted by: Garfunkel
« on: August 08, 2019, 12:04:47 PM »

He hasn't said anything about it but it has been asked for in the past. Extremely unlikely to be included in C# 1.0 I'd say.
Posted by: Bartimeus
« on: August 08, 2019, 06:32:49 AM »

Hello people !

Do you know if Steve paln to add, one day, multi biome planets with a continetal subdivision of those planets ?

Thanks !
Posted by: sloanjh
« on: August 03, 2019, 08:30:40 AM »

Since the game seems designed to only model senior officers (OF-5 and above) will craft of a small enough size (like fighters) need an officer character even though normally they'd be too small to be commanded by such a senior officer?

The named officers in Aurora are not the entire officer corps for your empire - they're the "exceptional" officers.  If a ship does not have a named officer in command (or in a staff slot), then it's assumed that an "average" officer (with all traits = 0) is in command.  (Unless Steve changed things while I wasn't looking :) )

John
Posted by: Garfunkel
« on: August 03, 2019, 04:49:01 AM »

A +2 option would be good for those nations/powers/races where the rank structure gets long and elaborate. Especially as fighters will probably become more common in C# what with sensor changes and the AI getting to use them and so on.
Posted by: TheRowan
« on: August 02, 2019, 07:31:47 AM »

I was reading the changes thread and from what I gathered we will no longer manually be able to set which rank of officer can command any given class of ship and will instead be restricted by a criteria dictated by which command modules we have installed.

This is worrying as I model officers all the way down to ensigns as I like using fighters (which would be piloted by ensigns) and this would mean most of my ships would be commanded by mere lieutenants.

I hope this isn't the case. I was hoping that we'd simply be able to set a minimum rank and a maximum rank to dictate who commands what (no more Admiral fighter-pilots please).

Classes do have specific rank requirements, because there needs to be space for the lower-ranked officers on the same ship. There is a checkbox to give a ship a rank one higher than normal. I could add a +2 as well if required.

Does that mean you can no longer manually dictate whether a ship is commanded by a certain rank?

Since the game seems designed to only model senior officers (OF-5 and above) will craft of a small enough size (like fighters) need an officer character even though normally they'd be too small to be commanded by such a senior officer?

It means you can only dictate the rank within certain constraints. If a design has components that require more junior officers, you can only assign a rank that provides space for those officers below it. You can avoid that increase in rank by not including those components. You can also specify the rank be one higher than it would normally be for the ship type, which is what I am doing in my current campaign for ships at 36,000 tons and higher.

As I mentioned in my previous reply I could add a +2 so you can push the required rank higher, which means you could create your rank hierarchy from a lower starting point. My current game has officers starting at Lieutenant commander (OF-3).

A +2 option would be good, that would let you model officers down to Lt (which always seems a better place to start for fighter pilots)... That would give you fighters and patrol boats being commanded by Lt. to Cdr. rank, corvettes etc. by Lt. Cdr. to Captain, most warships being a Cdr but with the option to have capital ships under a Captain and the pride of your fleet commanded by a Commodore (until he gets sacked for misusing his hire car, but that's another story). Presumably any ship where you didn't assign an officer is actually being commanded by a grizzled chief or a terrified Sublieutenant...
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: August 02, 2019, 03:31:48 AM »

I was reading the changes thread and from what I gathered we will no longer manually be able to set which rank of officer can command any given class of ship and will instead be restricted by a criteria dictated by which command modules we have installed.

This is worrying as I model officers all the way down to ensigns as I like using fighters (which would be piloted by ensigns) and this would mean most of my ships would be commanded by mere lieutenants.

I hope this isn't the case. I was hoping that we'd simply be able to set a minimum rank and a maximum rank to dictate who commands what (no more Admiral fighter-pilots please).

Classes do have specific rank requirements, because there needs to be space for the lower-ranked officers on the same ship. There is a checkbox to give a ship a rank one higher than normal. I could add a +2 as well if required.

Does that mean you can no longer manually dictate whether a ship is commanded by a certain rank?

Since the game seems designed to only model senior officers (OF-5 and above) will craft of a small enough size (like fighters) need an officer character even though normally they'd be too small to be commanded by such a senior officer?

It means you can only dictate the rank within certain constraints. If a design has components that require more junior officers, you can only assign a rank that provides space for those officers below it. You can avoid that increase in rank by not including those components. You can also specify the rank be one higher than it would normally be for the ship type, which is what I am doing in my current campaign for ships at 36,000 tons and higher.

As I mentioned in my previous reply I could add a +2 so you can push the required rank higher, which means you could create your rank hierarchy from a lower starting point. My current game has officers starting at Lieutenant commander (OF-3).
Posted by: BasileusMaximos
« on: August 01, 2019, 11:25:54 PM »

I was reading the changes thread and from what I gathered we will no longer manually be able to set which rank of officer can command any given class of ship and will instead be restricted by a criteria dictated by which command modules we have installed.

This is worrying as I model officers all the way down to ensigns as I like using fighters (which would be piloted by ensigns) and this would mean most of my ships would be commanded by mere lieutenants.

I hope this isn't the case. I was hoping that we'd simply be able to set a minimum rank and a maximum rank to dictate who commands what (no more Admiral fighter-pilots please).

Classes do have specific rank requirements, because there needs to be space for the lower-ranked officers on the same ship. There is a checkbox to give a ship a rank one higher than normal. I could add a +2 as well if required.

Does that mean you can no longer manually dictate whether a ship is commanded by a certain rank?

Since the game seems designed to only model senior officers (OF-5 and above) will craft of a small enough size (like fighters) need an officer character even though normally they'd be too small to be commanded by such a senior officer?
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: August 01, 2019, 03:36:24 AM »

I was reading the changes thread and from what I gathered we will no longer manually be able to set which rank of officer can command any given class of ship and will instead be restricted by a criteria dictated by which command modules we have installed.

This is worrying as I model officers all the way down to ensigns as I like using fighters (which would be piloted by ensigns) and this would mean most of my ships would be commanded by mere lieutenants.

I hope this isn't the case. I was hoping that we'd simply be able to set a minimum rank and a maximum rank to dictate who commands what (no more Admiral fighter-pilots please).

Classes do have specific rank requirements, because there needs to be space for the lower-ranked officers on the same ship. There is a checkbox to give a ship a rank one higher than normal. I could add a +2 as well if required.
Posted by: BasileusMaximos
« on: August 01, 2019, 03:18:58 AM »

I was reading the changes thread and from what I gathered we will no longer manually be able to set which rank of officer can command any given class of ship and will instead be restricted by a criteria dictated by which command modules we have installed.

This is worrying as I model officers all the way down to ensigns as I like using fighters (which would be piloted by ensigns) and this would mean most of my ships would be commanded by mere lieutenants.

I hope this isn't the case. I was hoping that we'd simply be able to set a minimum rank and a maximum rank to dictate who commands what (no more Admiral fighter-pilots please).
Posted by: Hazard
« on: July 31, 2019, 12:53:49 PM »

This is a good point.

The destination/source/stable flag is what shipping lines use when deciding potential destinations. That will be set to destination for each new colony unless you manually change it. Even if a population is flagged as a potential destination, colonists will not be sent unless there is space.

The VB6 criteria for a colony to be an automatic destination (i.e. you can't change to stable or source) is a population of 25m or less. For C#, it is now a population of 25m or less where the current total population on the body (all races) is less than half of the maximum capacity.

It'd be much more convenient to just have a new colony automatically get designated as a destination and let you change it to stable/source/source above 5% maximum population manually without it getting pinned back to 'destination' the moment it drops below an nonadjustable value. Just in case you want to empty a colony utterly for whatever reason.

For that matter, if it's possible in the system, give a colony a couple of 'source from this many colonists' and a 'destination up to this many colonists' lists, with the lists for a colony generating (millions of pop) values at colony founding and arrival/departure of orbital habitation stations but in the back end corresponding with certain percentage values of the body's maximum population that the lists refer to internally but use the exact amount of population calculation values only for display purposes so nothing breaks.

Agreed but, what about trade goods? Does a population without any facility, basically just a population farm, still generate trade goods for the civilian sector?

They should. Which is good and useful, but putting them to work is even better for generating wealth.
Posted by: Zincat
« on: July 31, 2019, 12:31:12 PM »

It would also encourage actually developing colonies, instead of just dumping population and watch it generate wealth.

With wealth generation changing from 'total population' to 'employed population' for C# Aurora, I doubt that will be a thing anymore.

Agreed but, what about trade goods? Does a population without any facility, basically just a population farm, still generate trade goods for the civilian sector?
Posted by: Father Tim
« on: July 31, 2019, 12:23:36 PM »

It would also encourage actually developing colonies, instead of just dumping population and watch it generate wealth.

With wealth generation changing from 'total population' to 'employed population' for C# Aurora, I doubt that will be a thing anymore.
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