Author Topic: C# Aurora Changes Discussion  (Read 192678 times)

0 Members and 12 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7662
  • Thanked: 3579 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2205 on: May 02, 2019, 09:23:36 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 :)

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

I'm creating a five faction start in the Sol system and should probably have the prep done over the weekend.

The problem with thrown-together multi-nation starts (which the other C# multi-nation test campaigns have been) is that all the factions have (roughly) similar capabilities and similar problems, so there is a lot of repetition and a lack of variety, which isn't much fun so I get bored fast.

One alternative is a massive undertaking like Colonial Wars, which had existing systems and colonies, but that is too much work at this stage for a test campaign. The other is to make the factions sufficiently different, even though they are all starting in Sol, which is the route I am taking for the next campaign.
 

Offline Whitecold

  • Commander
  • *********
  • W
  • Posts: 321
  • Thanked: 75 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2206 on: May 02, 2019, 11:30:16 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 :)

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

I'm creating a five faction start in the Sol system and should probably have the prep done over the weekend.

The problem with thrown-together multi-nation starts (which the other C# multi-nation test campaigns have been) is that all the factions have (roughly) similar capabilities and similar problems, so there is a lot of repetition and a lack of variety, which isn't much fun so I get bored fast.

One alternative is a massive undertaking like Colonial Wars, which had existing systems and colonies, but that is too much work at this stage for a test campaign. The other is to make the factions sufficiently different, even though they are all starting in Sol, which is the route I am taking for the next campaign.

Almost a bit disappointing to see this campaign end, most of the starts look quite appealing, and leave me wanting for more.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7662
  • Thanked: 3579 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2207 on: May 02, 2019, 11:42:44 AM »
Almost a bit disappointing to see this campaign end, most of the starts look quite appealing, and leave me wanting for more.

Yes, me too. I am enjoying the current campaign, but the Swarm grav survey ships (another new addition) are exploring in a different direction, so unless the Royal Navy shows the way, that contact is broken for several years. Building up without an immediate threat will be interesting but not useful from a testing POV. I might come back to the same general idea for another campaign in the future though.

Creating the setup for the new campaign has highlighted a few bugs, so that has already been a useful exercise.
 
The following users thanked this post: Garfunkel

Offline Vizzy

  • Able Ordinary Rate
  • V
  • Posts: 2
  • Thanked: 2 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2208 on: May 04, 2019, 04:47:07 AM »
Quote from: Steve Walmsley link=topic=8497. msg114173#msg114173 date=1556807016
The problem with thrown-together multi-nation starts (which the other C# multi-nation test campaigns have been) is that all the factions have (roughly) similar capabilities and similar problems, so there is a lot of repetition and a lack of variety, which isn't much fun so I get bored fast. 

Hi Steve

I've had a realitively simple idea in the back of my mind for a while now but your post prompted me to post it to the suggestions thread.   It's a (realtively simple to implement, I hope) way of making races/campaigns different while also aiding roleplay.   It's done by making Research less predictable and more varied:

Quote from: Vizzy link=topic=9841. msg114223#msg114223 date=1556962755
Suggestion:
For each piece of research have two values for the Research Cost, one estimate (with the same values as now) and one true value.    This true value could be a random multiplier (say between 0.  5x and 4x) and would also be different for each race.   


What you would see on the interface would be the estimate, so you could roughly predict when a research item would finish, but not to the exact date.    It would give a bit more variety in multi race starts and also between campaigns themselves.    I think it would also aid roleplay, simulating (in a basic way) the uncertainties of research such as breakthroughs and setbacks, and lead to a more dynamic feel of the game. 

Wasn't sure how to link to the suggestion, happy to change the quote to a link if anyone wishes. 
« Last Edit: May 04, 2019, 04:51:36 AM by Vizzy »
 
The following users thanked this post: Xtrem532, MJOne

Offline MJOne

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • Thanked: 4 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2209 on: May 07, 2019, 08:29:22 AM »
To build on this idea, since the implemetation of research has not changed alot since the 90s in games, why not actually make racial design companies that have a +/- bonus for each research category affecting the values of each technology? (Design Techs)

Companies should be generated at start

Company ”Not So General Motors”:
Power and propulsion +10% =
10% more power
10% less fuel consumption
10% less size (can be a problem with NPR designed ships)

Company ”Never A Straight Answer”:
Missile and kinetic +20% =
20% less missile cost
20% more missile manouver rating

Etc etc

Company bonuses could change over time due to XYZ. (RP messages)

Just a thought


 

Offline Father Tim

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1119
  • Thanked: 111 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2210 on: May 07, 2019, 11:21:18 PM »
So, would I be able to see these bonuses ahead of time?  Or would I have to build a 200-ton engines from five different manufacturers to compare them?  If the Royal Ross engine is equal or superior in every way to the Watt & Prithee, is its production somehow limited or do I get to ignore the 'bad' engine and never be forced to use it?
 

Offline QuakeIV

  • Registered
  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 316
  • Thanked: 29 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2211 on: May 07, 2019, 11:42:00 PM »
It would be kindof cool if you could solicit bids from corporations to supply you with equipment, then pick your most preferred option.
 
The following users thanked this post: Xtrem532

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1193
  • Thanked: 121 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2212 on: May 08, 2019, 12:06:46 PM »
It would indeed but the system would have to be robust so that if I play with a non-human and/or non-capitalist faction, other possibilities are still available on how to conduct research/prototypes.
 
The following users thanked this post: Agoelia

Offline MJOne

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • Thanked: 4 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2213 on: May 08, 2019, 11:34:30 PM »
Quote from: Father Tim link=topic=8497. msg114310#msg114310 date=1557289278
So, would I be able to see these bonuses ahead of time?  Or would I have to build a 200-ton engines from five different manufacturers to compare them?  If the Royal Ross engine is equal or superior in every way to the Watt & Prithee, is its production somehow limited or do I get to ignore the 'bad' engine and never be forced to use it?

Well, I am not sure the best way to implement this without cheezy human players and ”stupid” AI.
I only think that every company in the Universe designing the exact same engine with the exact same stat is silly.  But its convinient from a programming perspective.

Improvements over time could solve bad designs.  That you have to invest alittle extra credits and materials to get a second roll on the bonus stats on an already researched design tech. 

I just want to see variations.

NPR companies should also be ”spyable” and perhaps even absorbed after an invasion. 
Like operation paperclip. . . . 

Just thinking out loud.
 

Offline Jovus

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • J
  • Posts: 148
  • Thanked: 45 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2214 on: May 10, 2019, 10:46:01 AM »
Quick dumb question: has the issue with ships that have no engines being counted as having military engines and so only able to use military jump drives been addressed? What with all the changes to how jump tenders work they might have been, even implicitly, but a quick search turns nothing up.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7662
  • Thanked: 3579 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2215 on: May 10, 2019, 11:55:12 AM »
Quick dumb question: has the issue with ships that have no engines being counted as having military engines and so only able to use military jump drives been addressed? What with all the changes to how jump tenders work they might have been, even implicitly, but a quick search turns nothing up.

Ships without engines are flagged as 'no military engines' now.
 
The following users thanked this post: Jovus

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • J
  • Posts: 993
  • Thanked: 74 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2216 on: May 10, 2019, 07:51:54 PM »
Quick dumb question: has the issue with ships that have no engines being counted as having military engines and so only able to use military jump drives been addressed? What with all the changes to how jump tenders work they might have been, even implicitly, but a quick search turns nothing up.

Ships without engines are flagged as 'no military engines' now.

Question...

How does it work when a Tug is jumped while towing another ship, is this even possible?!?

Don't remember how it worked in VB Aurora.
 

Offline Jovus

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • J
  • Posts: 148
  • Thanked: 45 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2217 on: May 11, 2019, 04:41:44 AM »
IIRC, the tug jumps fine when it's not pulling the station, but not with.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7662
  • Thanked: 3579 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2218 on: May 11, 2019, 05:32:39 AM »
Quick dumb question: has the issue with ships that have no engines being counted as having military engines and so only able to use military jump drives been addressed? What with all the changes to how jump tenders work they might have been, even implicitly, but a quick search turns nothing up.

Ships without engines are flagged as 'no military engines' now.

Question...

How does it work when a Tug is jumped while towing another ship, is this even possible?!?

Don't remember how it worked in VB Aurora.

If the jump point has a gate, it will work fine. Otherwise, it would depend on whether there was a sufficiently large jump engine at the jump point.
 
The following users thanked this post: Jovus

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • J
  • Posts: 993
  • Thanked: 74 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #2219 on: May 13, 2019, 09:48:18 AM »
Quick dumb question: has the issue with ships that have no engines being counted as having military engines and so only able to use military jump drives been addressed? What with all the changes to how jump tenders work they might have been, even implicitly, but a quick search turns nothing up.

Ships without engines are flagged as 'no military engines' now.

Question...

How does it work when a Tug is jumped while towing another ship, is this even possible?!?

Don't remember how it worked in VB Aurora.

If the jump point has a gate, it will work fine. Otherwise, it would depend on whether there was a sufficiently large jump engine at the jump point.

I then assume that if a 10.000t Tug with commercial engines tractors a 20.000t military ships with military engines you would need a jump ship that can jump at least 20.000t of military engines if you don't have a gate at the jump point.

To be honest I don't remember the full rules for jumping ships. But I assume that you can jump a military ship even with a commercial jump drive just not make a combat jump with it?

I mean there are or should not be much difference in jumping something that has its engines turned of or a base with no engines at all, so as long as the size match then any jump drive should be able to jump any ships, right?!?

Or was it not the case that you could not jump a base with no engine at all... I think there was problems with this or did this require a military jump drive?
« Last Edit: May 13, 2019, 10:26:03 AM by Jorgen_CAB »
 

 

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