Author Topic: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread  (Read 68991 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Cassaralla

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • Posts: 97
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #720 on: November 25, 2015, 10:16:10 AM »
Suggestion:  A 'Designate Hull for Disposal in support of Fleet Training Exercise' option.

Basically designate old, obsolete or too damaged hulls for target practice.  Remove the crews, ordnance and perhaps a percentage of minerals used to simulate the scrapping of worthwhile items on board, and then an order to remote control them on a random path so other units can take pot shots at them for training purposes.

Offline linkxsc

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • l
  • Posts: 297
  • Thanked: 11 times
Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #721 on: November 27, 2015, 09:11:11 PM »
New stupid idea post.

Ability to mount "fuel tanks" in box launchers to extend small ship range if needed.

Yes, so lets do a bit of figuring. Say you're making a fighter, and the fighter has say 5 size 2 launchers on it as its main weapon. It also has 1 small fuel tank aboard as its fuel store giving it 10,000l of fuel, and a given range based on that.
Now most fighters have no qualms about that size fuel load, but sometimes I'd like a little bit more... but the fighters are already built, and I can't travel back to base to pick up new 1s. what to do, what to do?

Well if you figure a size 2 missile as all fuel... thats 5,000 fuel that could be loaded into a missile "hardpoint" to inject back into the plane for extended range. For those times when you might need to chase the enemy for a bit.
Or perhaps to give a little credence to fighters loading shields, and being able to maintain a fuel load.
And heck, if I swap out 1 missile on a built fighter that goes on deployment, for an extra 50% range.... that certainly doesn't seem too terrible at times.

Probably not something most players would get any use out of, but it might offer some of us that little bit of extra to work with at times.
This mainly comes up due to fighters I wish sometimes I could launch from farther away to go after some targets, than their standard fuel load would support.
Or in the case of trying to ferry them to new bases, without having to haul them in carriers.


Offline Thundercraft

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • Posts: 81
  • Thanked: 6 times
  • Ensign Navigator
Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #722 on: November 30, 2015, 03:23:19 AM »
Suggestion: Waaaaaay up the tech tree, a black hole-related installation that works as a sort of extremely crude terraformer. It's like an ordinary terraforming installation except:

1. It only removes atmo. It can't add any.
2. It operates at about 100x the speed of an ordinary terraformer.
3. It targets all available gases, in proportion to their part of the whole. (If the atmosphere started out as 100 atmospheres of CO2 and 0.1 atmospheres of Methane, this thing would reduce it to 10 atmospheres of CO2 and 0.01 atmospheres of Methane along the way toward 0 of both.)

Call it the "Venus 3000" maybe.

+1 Vote! Nice suggestion!

Actually, I had long considered that a wormhole used to siphon off excess gasses would be a wonderfully efficient way to terraform worlds.

Your idea is to eliminate excess gasses. But I was thinking that a tiny wormhole may allow the transfer of gasses from a hot world with a thick atmosphere, like Venus, to a cold world with little of if any atmosphere, like Mars. The atmospheric pressure should push it through to escape to the low-pressure world.

You'd be terraforming two worlds at once, limited by your tech level, the aperture of the worm hole(s), and the energy required. Though, perhaps there would be risks or downsides? Maybe the radiation may do something to your population? Lower population growth and happiness? Or maybe there's a chance it would explode or something?

Regardless, I think the game really needs better method(s) to terraform with a higher tech level. Currently, it seems too slow.

Why can't we crash icy comets into a planet for liquids and/or gasses? The obstacle would be tugging or pushing the comets into an orbit that impacts a world. Of course, there could be downsides, particularly if the planet is inhabited. And for the short term, it may generate dust which cools the planet for a few years.

I've found articles such as "Icy comets serve as storks for life on Earth." They typically contain water, ammonia, methanol and carbon dioxide, among other ingredients. And the impact may have yielded the energy to drive prebiotic chemistry.

There are other possibilities, too. I found an article about encasing a small planet or a moon in a shell, such as steel and Kevlar fiber.  (See "Shell-Worlds: How Humanity Could Terraform Small Planets" on It would allow us to pressurize an atmosphere and make it Earth-like. Access to space would be through air-locks. And one could build spaceports and industries on the outside that takes advantage of the vacuum of space. That said, it'd be terribly vulnerable to an enemy attack...

I'm also reminded of options in Master of Orion II. Aside from the usual terraforming, players could build a Planetary Radiation Shield, which changes a "Radiated" planet to "Barren". (Also reduces bombardment damage by 5.) High up the tech tree, players could use Artificial Planet tech to compress/convert an asteroid field into a planet.

Hmm... Maybe, eventually, shield tech could allow one to build a shield around a planet just strong enough to hold or reinforcing a weak atmosphere? Or maybe they could help protect the fragile artificial shell and atmosphere of a Shell-World?
« Last Edit: November 30, 2015, 05:30:09 AM by Thundercraft »
"Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine." - Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington

Offline ExChairman

  • Captain
  • **********
  • E
  • Posts: 546
  • Thanked: 16 times
Re: Semi-Official 6.x Suggestion Thread
« Reply #723 on: December 02, 2015, 05:11:35 AM »
Would bee nice if "Asign Parent Headquarter" only were for the units on the planets.
As now when building the HQ usaly is on the bottom of the list and that list can bee long when you have alot of HQs.
Veni, Vedi, Volvo

Wargame player and Roleplayer for 33 years...


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 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76