Author Topic: C# Aurora Changes Discussion  (Read 187561 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1178
  • Thanked: 115 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2190 on: April 17, 2019, 02:30:39 PM »
While I don't like when AI plays by different rules compared to a human, I can understand the need for that separation - JP assaults are difficult and dangerous enough as they are.
 

Offline MarcAFK

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1872
  • Thanked: 84 times
  • ...it's so simple an idiot could have devised it..
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2191 on: April 17, 2019, 06:26:12 PM »
As a placeholder pending more work on the AI its completely fine.
Already the new AI now has to deal with a ton more stuff it was getting free passes on back with VB.
" Why is this godforsaken hellhole worth dying for? "
". . .  We know nothing about them, their language, their history or what they look like.  But we can assume this.  They stand for everything we don't stand for.  Also they told me you guys look like dorks. "
"Stop exploding, you cowards.  "
 

Offline MJOne

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • Thanked: 4 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2192 on: April 24, 2019, 02:33:07 PM »
It would be awesome if conditional orders could execute a saved order template.
Like all your templates or some ”special” template orders showed up as an choice of action when a certain condition is met. 

Condition
Hostile detected in system

Action
(Saved Order Template)
Move to waypoint A
Activate Shields
Activate AS
Follow Gate X at 100 mKm

Something like this
Then we get a very powerful tool to save some micro-m.

Just a thought. . .
 
The following users thanked this post: Barkhorn, Titanian, DEEPenergy, Agoelia

Offline amram

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • a
  • Posts: 38
  • Thanked: 26 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2193 on: April 24, 2019, 11:39:31 PM »
^^ So much yes.

This would allow solving things like tankers dropping fuel in very inopportune places, or requiring me to intervene personally.  Instead I could save the correct template, collect fuel/ores from ship/colony and deliver to specific colony, perhaps not even in the same system.

That it would be case by case is a small nuisance of micro, to gain a huge savings in ongoing micro that no longer needs to occur.

You could give those same ships a run like hell order chain that is direct path to the nearest maintenance yards, a place your likely to have warships, triggered via detected hostiles.
 
The following users thanked this post: Agoelia, MJOne

Offline JustAnotherDude

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • J
  • Posts: 44
  • Thanked: 13 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2194 on: April 30, 2019, 05:06:48 PM »
Really like the missile engine change, it'll make designing the bastards so much easier.
 
The following users thanked this post: Agoelia

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • J
  • Posts: 992
  • Thanked: 74 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2195 on: April 30, 2019, 05:38:29 PM »
It would be awesome if conditional orders could execute a saved order template.
Like all your templates or some ”special” template orders showed up as an choice of action when a certain condition is met. 

Condition
Hostile detected in system

Action
(Saved Order Template)
Move to waypoint A
Activate Shields
Activate AS
Follow Gate X at 100 mKm

Something like this
Then we get a very powerful tool to save some micro-m.

Just a thought. . .

While in the order topic... please pretty please remove the "Order delay" functionality for a proper "Wait on Station" order you insert into the order queue. The Order Delay only work the first time an order is executed and it is not very easy to know it you added it or not it it is not visible either.

A proper "Wait on Station" order can be very useful to set up Patrol routes... I would also like if I could get a randomised "Wait on Station" order as well. The ships would wait at a spot for a determined number of maximum and minimum seconds.

I can see many reason for why I would like to use this, especially in a multi-faction game where I run all sides... throwing in some randomness in ships movement can be an interesting way to get some unknown factors in battles between the factions.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7631
  • Thanked: 3427 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2196 on: April 30, 2019, 06:20:39 PM »
It would be awesome if conditional orders could execute a saved order template.
Like all your templates or some ”special” template orders showed up as an choice of action when a certain condition is met. 

Condition
Hostile detected in system

Action
(Saved Order Template)
Move to waypoint A
Activate Shields
Activate AS
Follow Gate X at 100 mKm

Something like this
Then we get a very powerful tool to save some micro-m.

Just a thought. . .

While in the order topic... please pretty please remove the "Order delay" functionality for a proper "Wait on Station" order you insert into the order queue. The Order Delay only work the first time an order is executed and it is not very easy to know it you added it or not it it is not visible either.

A proper "Wait on Station" order can be very useful to set up Patrol routes... I would also like if I could get a randomised "Wait on Station" order as well. The ships would wait at a spot for a determined number of maximum and minimum seconds.

I can see many reason for why I would like to use this, especially in a multi-faction game where I run all sides... throwing in some randomness in ships movement can be an interesting way to get some unknown factors in battles between the factions.

Loss of order delay is a bug in VB6 which is corrected in C#, so the problem should not arise. A wait on station would be possible although it just reverses the order of delay and execute.
 

Offline mtm84

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • m
  • Posts: 52
  • Thanked: 3 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2197 on: May 01, 2019, 02:36:04 AM »
With the missile engine change, is the max engine size still 5 MSP?  I didn't see anything for number of engines, but maybe I missed it, or you plan on increasing the max engine size.
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • J
  • Posts: 992
  • Thanked: 74 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2198 on: May 01, 2019, 03:42:20 AM »
It would be awesome if conditional orders could execute a saved order template.
Like all your templates or some ”special” template orders showed up as an choice of action when a certain condition is met. 

Condition
Hostile detected in system

Action
(Saved Order Template)
Move to waypoint A
Activate Shields
Activate AS
Follow Gate X at 100 mKm

Something like this
Then we get a very powerful tool to save some micro-m.

Just a thought. . .

While in the order topic... please pretty please remove the "Order delay" functionality for a proper "Wait on Station" order you insert into the order queue. The Order Delay only work the first time an order is executed and it is not very easy to know it you added it or not it it is not visible either.

A proper "Wait on Station" order can be very useful to set up Patrol routes... I would also like if I could get a randomised "Wait on Station" order as well. The ships would wait at a spot for a determined number of maximum and minimum seconds.

I can see many reason for why I would like to use this, especially in a multi-faction game where I run all sides... throwing in some randomness in ships movement can be an interesting way to get some unknown factors in battles between the factions.

Loss of order delay is a bug in VB6 which is corrected in C#, so the problem should not arise. A wait on station would be possible although it just reverses the order of delay and execute.

That is good to hear... will we also now see the Delay order in the order queue... this I think would make it more transparent?

It can otherwise be hard to remember where and how much of a delay you ordered.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2019, 03:44:09 AM by Jorgen_CAB »
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7631
  • Thanked: 3427 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2199 on: May 01, 2019, 03:48:12 AM »
With the missile engine change, is the max engine size still 5 MSP?  I didn't see anything for number of engines, but maybe I missed it, or you plan on increasing the max engine size.

I am calling the same code from a different place, so the sizes will appear the same in the drop downs. Adding larger sizes is no problem though.
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • J
  • Posts: 992
  • Thanked: 74 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2200 on: May 01, 2019, 03:50:29 AM »
With the missile engine change, is the max engine size still 5 MSP?  I didn't see anything for number of engines, but maybe I missed it, or you plan on increasing the max engine size.

I am calling the same code from a different place, so the sizes will appear the same in the drop downs. Adding larger sizes is no problem though.

If it is not to complicated for you I think you should just skip max size of missile engines. Large missiles need all the help they can get so being able to get more range in larger missiles can be a good thing in my opinion.
 

Offline chrislocke2000

  • Captain
  • **********
  • c
  • Posts: 483
  • Thanked: 22 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2201 on: May 01, 2019, 06:28:19 AM »
On the subject of additional orders, as well as having the transit and divide TG order it would be great to have a transit and detach survey craft order. This would be a quality of life improvement where you are sending tenders to support survey craft and provide the jump capability.
 

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1178
  • Thanked: 115 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2202 on: May 01, 2019, 07:54:14 AM »
Isn't that already a command? Or something very similar.

The missile engine change is great QoL - I assume we research the missile engine combined with the missile itself, ie the engine RP cost is combined with the missile RP cost? If I then research another missile using the same engine, do I have to pay the RP cost again? It's not a big deal since their RP costs are generally small and it can be justified with the lore that TN missile engines need to be custom-tailored to fit a specific missile.

That commander name theme change is fantastic for United Earth type factions or even just good old NATO / EU / ASEAN games.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7631
  • Thanked: 3427 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2203 on: May 02, 2019, 04:55:04 AM »
Isn't that already a command? Or something very similar.

The missile engine change is great QoL - I assume we research the missile engine combined with the missile itself, ie the engine RP cost is combined with the missile RP cost? If I then research another missile using the same engine, do I have to pay the RP cost again? It's not a big deal since their RP costs are generally small and it can be justified with the lore that TN missile engines need to be custom-tailored to fit a specific missile.

That commander name theme change is fantastic for United Earth type factions or even just good old NATO / EU / ASEAN games.

You no longer pay research costs for the engine, because of the complexities you mentioned above.

I've been playing around with a more complex campaign setup and the lore involves some mixed-nationality factions. I have one faction with a dozen different name themes :)

Also leads to some interesting company names :)
 

Offline chrislocke2000

  • Captain
  • **********
  • c
  • Posts: 483
  • Thanked: 22 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2204 on: May 02, 2019, 08:54:05 AM »

[/quote]

I've been playing around with a more complex campaign setup and the lore involves some mixed-nationality factions. I have one faction with a dozen different name themes :)

Also leads to some interesting company names :)
[/quote]

Cripes does that mean the 5th Campaign start is inbound? Hopefully a multi faction start gives more of a chance for some ground combat!
 

 

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