Aurora Mechanics Survey

[SikeSky (OP)]

Hello! I have been sharing a survey on the Aurora4x Discord and Subreddit to get a feel for what people enjoy the most in Aurora.        I'm planning on writing up a more complete analysis of what I think makes the game stand out from the "competition," but I'd love to get the opinions of the community first.        The survey is very short - it should only take a few minutes to finish.       

You can find the survey here!
https://forms.gle/mYCmALPLtPZhyVCZ7

Edit: The forum text editor is breaking up the URL for some reason.  Remove the spaces when you search it!

[Garfunkel]

I fixed the link for people's convenience.

[Zap0]

Interesting. Since there wasn't much of a way to put emphasis on it in the survey, I think the absolute core fun part of Aurora is the ship design and relatedly the component design. You can spend so much time fiddling and optimizing, choosing one drawback over another, that the ship becomes "yours" in a way.

The new ground combat units go a little in the same direction with their increased configuration options, but there the difference between choices is often negligible, and what happens on the ground is often just decided by who can win in space (land more troops/defeat STO) anyway. So i think the new ground combat system is overly detailed for not much gained.

And I forgot one thing I wish was in Aurora: A more developed civilian infrastructure. Always struck me as weird that I can just dump a few million people and some factories on an alien world and have them be immediately be just as effective as on Earth without needing to build cities first.

[pwhk]

Ship design is unmatched in any space 4X games I have played. Really allow player to design the balance between Offense, Defense, Speed and Endurance in a free form way. No 4X game is even near having this level of design feature.

Also one of the few games that actually put the "D" in R&D.

[Kishmond]

Interesting. I like the exploration, colonization, and empire simulation part of it and don't care much for ship design. I wish common tools for ship and missile design were built in instead of being a different application.

[pwhk]

Just realized one thing that is unique to Aurora and not often seen in all other 4X games, it's subtle.

It is 1-to-1 scaled solar systems.

Glad that Aurora actually made it work!

[gpt3]

Just realized one thing that is unique to Aurora and not often seen in all other 4X games, it's subtle.

It is 1-to-1 scaled solar systems.

Glad that Aurora actually made it work!

Definitely! Aurora does a really good job of making space feel realistically vast (travel across systems is nontrivial and requires advance planning) but not overwhelming (you don't have to spend real-life hours/days waiting for your ships to reach their destinations).

[nuclearslurpee]

This I think captures one of the very core things that makes Aurora unique. Aurora, despite its attention to detail and nerdery, is not necessarily a "realistic" game - all the TN technobabble, inertialess engines, and so on speaks otherwise! However, Aurora is very committed to an emergent style of gameplay which few other games emulate or indeed seek to emulate.

What I mean is that other games would tend to look at the real scale of the Solar System, decide that it doesn't fit their vision for exciting tactical gameplay, and tweak things however they like in the service of pre-selected game mechanics - usually by shortening the effective distances between bodies (often incongruously with tactical combat speeds) and/or making the distance between bodies uniform rather than roughly exponential. Aurora is unique in letting things be as they are and counting on the basic mechanics to create an interesting gameplay situation.

In my current test(?) game, for example, my player race inhabits a randomly generated system with planets over 100b km distant, including some gas giants, and the only asteroid belt >50b km from the star. The outlying bodies with minerals are obviously too far away to be major economic centers, which will drive a lot of very rapid exploration and expansion (naturally, the system has only one outgoing jump point...), but at the same time those resources are there and even if not feasible to exploit in the short term can provide a valuable strategic reserve in a very safe home system. You don't get these kinds of logistical considerations in a game where interplanetary travel is just a hop, skip, and jump away.

[Garfunkel]

Which is one of the problems of Stellaris. Solar systems are tiny, the galaxy is small, ships can travel massive distances in the blink of an eye, yet space battles take weeks or even months. I know it's because of the limitations of the Clausewitz engine, but it kills my interest in the game completely.

[SikeSky (OP)]

And the results are in!
I won't go over the results in detail - if you want to see the numbers yourself, then you can here: https://docs.  google.  com/forms/d/1UMt2rpgdtejuuQRypXv-52wc074ggVGEuWZb-yTK7x0/viewanalytics

Instead, I'll be going over some notable observations and my personal thoughts on Aurora. 
1.   Everybody likes the game.   I wasn't surprised by this since I've long felt that - while Aurora has a lot to offer as a story generator - if you don't enjoy the game, you're not going to suffer through it to create a story.   I was surprised that there were as many people as there were that "only" play for the game itself though. 
2.   The features that most respondents considered "integral" to Aurora were exploration, development of the empire, designing custom ships/technologies, and fleet combat - literally the 4Xs! The features respondents considered the least "integral" to Aurora were managing administrators, planetary archeology, ground combat, and diplomacy.   (I'm keeping in mind that people are liable to consider this question to mean "What do you like in Aurora" instead of "What do you think defines Aurora," and I'd recommend you do too!)
3.   Respondents expressing interest in further automation of the game were in the minority, with the exception of administrator assignments (~60%) and ground unit maintenance (50%). 
4.   1/3rd of the respondents said that they enjoyed playing as multiple empires! I was surprised, but happy to see I wasn't the only one  .   The majority of respondents reported that they enjoyed setting individual/by-class names for ships and (despite admins' heretofore unpopularity) over half of respondents answered that they do like having named officers!
5.   While most proposed features received lukewarm response, there was some notable appreciation for the notion of multi-species empires and inter-empire alliances. 
6.   The most common requested features fell into the categories of better UI and automation.   (There were plenty of great responses in there though, thank you to those who took the time to write in detail.  )


I'll try now to reply to the replies, or at least comment further on them.   Mandatory "This is just, like, my opinion, man.  "
1.   Managing the mineral economy is absolutely integral to Aurora.   Your starter system will run out of critical materials very quickly, and after that it's basically a race to keep finding more, higher value planets close to population centers.   If you're not fighting aliens, you're probably on that mineral grind (even if you don't think you are.  ) Furthermore, I'm split on the best way, if at all, to automate this aspect of the game.   Personally, the part of mineral management I dislike the most is moving asteroid miners around.   Having to create a colony on the planet and then put miners there is just a pain. 

2.   Long-term terraforming makes planets matter.   Within a couple hours of a Stellaris campaign I probably can't keep my planets straight.   The only thing that I really care about later on is which planet has the starbase with all the shipyards on it.   In Aurora, you might come across 10 times as many planets, but only actually care about and manage 1/10th the planets you would in Stellaris.   The actual mechanics of terraforming are interesting, but it's the knock-on effects that really matter to the gameplay, and I vastly prefer Aurora's method. 

3.   Ship maintenance and logistics are often annoying to deal with, but also heavily influence wartime strategy.   A ship that cannot reach the enemy might as well be kept surface side as a gun battery, and when war comes knocking at your door, you usually have to fight with what you have ready, not what's in the shipyard or undergoing maintenance.   The US, for example, has as many carriers as it does so that the USN can keep a minimum deployed without sacrificing either operational readiness or sane maintenance schedules. 

4.   Incremental research is the least interesting way to set up a research system, and the smaller the increments are the less interesting it is.   It might be more realistic, and there are some cases in Aurora's research tree where significant advances in a branch opens up new options, but generally I don't find it that compelling.   I think the only time I do get excited about research is when I unlock a new generator/engine type because nuclear fusion is cool and I like seeing the tech progression.   An extra 25% production cap a month is useful but boring, a breakthrough in energy technology is cool.   With all that said, I haven't though through a good replacement for Aurora's tech progression and it is completely serviceable as it is. 

5.   Archeology is dope, but the rewards suck and I think that's why people are kind of ambivalent about it.   The essentials for something cool are already there - Aurora doesn't have scripted CYOA sequences like Stellaris, instead the game just says, "Hey, there's some ruins here.   Wanna check them out?" And then you decide how much you want to invest into recovering the stuff, and there's even a chance for !FUN! stuff to come out of the ruins and say "Hi" to your poor Engineer Corps.   I think cranking up the risk and reward factors on dig sites would make them far more exciting to stumble across. 

6.   Administrators are basically invisible legwork for a player uninterested in creating a "story" for their campaign.   If the player is following or creating a narrative of some form or another, then administrators still only really offer a randomized name to assign to a character that is ultimately doomed to be outlived by the general story.   I wouldn't remove them since I myself have turned Aurora-admins into characters in AARs, but I find their contributions to the gameplay.  .  .   lacking.   I don't necessarily think that making them more important is the right call either; scientists and leaders are way more important in Stellaris and I find them even less compelling there. 

7.   Complexity != Micro.   I was happy that MandaloreGaming made a review of Aurora, but I kind of feel like someone who is really into the game needs to make a follow up/response.   Aurora is complex, but a lot of it is good complexity! Being able to design your own class of ship down to the exact size and resolution of its infrared sensors is complex, but I don't find it tedious at all.   I want that level of customization if not more.   But once the ship is designed, I don't have to worry about supply chain issues or anything like that.   The ship is just a ship that has certain capabilities and constraints.   To me, "Micro" has a bit of a negative connotation, and while in some cases it can be great ("I only want to use one fighter to go and flush out the enemy with its active sensors, and then the rest of my fleet fires a single salvo of missiles to conserve ammo!") it can also be - and often is - synonymous with "tedium.  " Aurora does have a lot of tedium, but I think it's important not to conflate the two. 

8.   Ground combat needs love.   I figured I'd get a lot of negative feedback on how important or how much people enjoyed ground combat, but I was disheartened by how many said it should be completely automated.   As another has mentioned, ground combat and design in AuroraC# has "had a lot of detail added for not much gain.  " I love the detail; just as with a ship I can go and draw out the exact size and composition of an army, complete with MLRS vehicles and TMLs, MBTs, IFVs, scouts, snipers, MANPAD and ATGM teams, SPGs, you name it.   And, what do you know, a balanced army works! .  .  .   Actually, someone already calculated the optimal strategy is just a bajillion guys with machine guns, and now the best way to replenish my fancy army is to build a copy of it and cannibalize the copy, and if I want to update its equipment then I have to add all the equipment to a series.  .  .   Oh no.   It just became tedium.  That being said, I don't think the answer is to dumb down the ground combat.   I'm going to make Stellaris my punching bag again - I hate ground invasions there.   I always forget that I need to go build some armies, then wait for them to get over to the planet that needs some "liberating," and then I watch some circles turn red and its over.   I think what Aurora needs is some quality of life improvements for army maintenance and modernization, and I think Aurora could benefit from a more involved tactical-level decision making process for ground combat.   I'd be happy with it as it is + QoL changes, but even some simple strategy could go a long way. 

9.   Large scale space combat needs attention.   Aurora does space combat better than any grand strategy game out there, and better than a fair few tactical space strategy games too.   However, I often find myself designing ships not around what I need or want, but around what is easiest to control with Aurora's fleet management system.   Carriers, for example, are a pain in the backside to setup and deploy, even if they are incredibly useful.   Missile ships are fun and one of the few visually interesting parts of the game, but assigning missiles to launchers and launchers to fire controls and fire controls to targets gets very cumbersome as the ships and fleets get larger, all the more so if you want to conserve ammunition! Considering how much of the game is spent designing warships and using them to fight, having such limited control over their operation feels like an oversight.   It's one of those cases where more options and more complexity - even in the UI! - would lead to less micro/tedium. 

And on that note, I'll get to the core of my thoughts on Aurora.   Aurora is not a 4x game, it is a naval sim built on top of a relatively simple empire manager.  4x games don't ask you to worry about missile colliers and tankers, nor do they inform you that half your population is locked up in the service industry.   Combat in most 4x titles, in fact combat in many space strategy titles involves clicking on your ship and right clicking on the enemy ship.   Can you imagine trying to fit sensor ranges and ELINT into Stellaris? What about trying to cram the missile designer into Sins of a Solar Empire? With that assertion in mind, when I think about how to improve on Aurora's formula, my mind jumps to something akin to CMANO laid over an interstellar nation simulator - and the necessary level of control that would come as a result.   It would be, without a doubt, the most nerdy, niche thing to ever be made, but I genuinely think it would play to Aurora's strengths.   Ideally, combat would become analogous to blue-navy doctrine, complete with true ELINT and passive target tracking, anti-radiation weaponry, realistic jamming, a greater emphasis on stealth and evasion; the whole nine yards.   Aurora is so close to this already; it hurts that it hasn't quite made the last hurdle.   As many respondents mentioned, expanded civilian economy, industry, influence and activity, and even political will would go a long ways to making the empire feel more alive, interactive, and important.   All in all, I don't think my vision is that different from Aurora as it is now, with the exception of the relative focus on "storytelling.  " I won't try to pick Steve's brain too much as I haven't read or used the forums until now, but I have heard before that this project wasn't really about making the world's best 4x game with a super-duper detailed and semi-realistic space combat layer, but instead creating something to assist in telling stories.   I myself have found more enjoyment playing "against myself" to create a story than any other kind of campaign.   (I have a couple docs with tens of thousands of words of world building and story events, complete with daring Doolitle-style raids, mysteries, tragedies, heroic actions, and political dramas that developed completely organically over the campaign.  ) While I believe that focusing on the simulation aspects of Aurora would result in an objective improvement of its core gameplay, I remain concerned that that aspect of Aurora would be lost in the enhanced level of detail.   Perhaps it's unfounded? Maybe it would lead to more interesting, unexpected developments for both those interested in the game and those interested in storycrafting.   Either way, it's been on my mind for some time now, and I wanted to share these ideas and get feedback from the wider community. 

Cheers!

[nuclearslurpee]

2.   The features that most respondents considered "integral" to Aurora were exploration, development of the empire, designing custom ships/technologies, and fleet combat - literally the 4Xs! The features respondents considered the least "integral" to Aurora were managing administrators, planetary archeology, ground combat, and diplomacy.   (I'm keeping in mind that people are liable to consider this question to mean "What do you like in Aurora" instead of "What do you think defines Aurora," and I'd recommend you do too!)

I'd actually quibble here slightly - the features that people state are "most integral" are those which are the most well-developed elements of the game, while those "least integral" are those elements which are less or minimally developed - as you give the example of later on RE: xenoarcheology. Exploration, development, ship design, and combat are all quite in-depth mechanics which generate considerable technical discussion on these forums even to the present day. Meanwhile, administrators, archeology, and diplomacy are quite minimal and bare-bones mechanics with only a couple of points for players to interact with, while ground combat is despite its complicated implementation a "solved system" (8 million bayonets machine guns) characterized largely by micromanagement rather than complex interactions - usually the posts on that topic are either suggested changes or very confused new people.

1.   Managing the mineral economy is absolutely integral to Aurora.
2.   Long-term terraforming makes planets matter.

I would suggest that these are 1a and 1b. Planets and systems matter in large part because of how integral they are to the game economy on a highly individualized basis. In most games the stellar logistics are so simplified that you don't need to care about your planets, just pick the ones with good mineral or habitability scores and pump them full of infrastructure. In Aurora a planet or system can be incredibly valuable even if it objectively poor in isolation - fleet bases, border outposts, archeological digs, and so on, there are many reasons to care about a colony and the stellar topography makes each one quite unique.

4.   Incremental research is the least interesting way to set up a research system, and the smaller the increments are the less interesting it is.   It might be more realistic, and there are some cases in Aurora's research tree where significant advances in a branch opens up new options, but generally I don't find it that compelling.   I think the only time I do get excited about research is when I unlock a new generator/engine type because nuclear fusion is cool and I like seeing the tech progression.   An extra 25% production cap a month is useful but boring, a breakthrough in energy technology is cool.   With all that said, I haven't though through a good replacement for Aurora's tech progression and it is completely serviceable as it is. 

I really have to dissent with this assessment. In and of itself, +25% to a tech line is not terribly interesting, but in Aurora techs are interesting because you actually get to use them to design new ship components - unlike many other games where a tech is just the next power tier of the same component, repeat ad infinitum, in Aurora we have serious design changes as a result of technologies which make each new tech level an interesting mini-game of its own. This does leave some techs which are incremental upgrades not tied to component design or new unlocks, but I think this is okay as not every tech has to be equally exciting anyways.

5.   Archeology is dope, but the rewards suck and I think that's why people are kind of ambivalent about it.

The xenoarcheology is one of those areas where finding the balance between interaction and micromanagement is difficult. I remember VB6 AARs which featured a massive military spacelift effort to remove installations from colonies with ruins to prevent them from being immediately blown apart from collateral damage whenever a giant robots event spawned. While these in theory added some danger and excitement to the proceedings, in practice they were pretty easily defeated making the whole thing largely an annoyance after the first few times.

The rewards are honestly quite nice, especially for a larger ruin, there's just not much interaction after you plop down a horde of construction vehicles and leave them alone for a couple of years.

7.   Complexity != Micro.

This is a critical point and one where despite the amount of micro in the game Aurora I feel gets the formula right where many games do not. The complexity of Aurora in most cases comes from the interactions between fairly simple mechanics, not from writing overcomplicated drek with hidden modifiers and black-box calculators to masquerade user confusion as "deep" gameplay.

8.   Ground combat needs love.

Ground combat is probably the hardest thing to get right in any space-based strategy game with more than superficial detail (and even something like Starfire which has a very superficial ground combat system still feels disconnected from reality at least to some players, Kurt I know has written about this). In most sci-fi universes the "interest" in ground combat is at the very low level, usually squads or platoons are the featured elements - but a proper planetary invasion rationally demands millions of troops, if not billions in more extreme cases like WH40K hive worlds. The Aurora C# ground combat system is a very bold attempt to unify these two extremes, in my view, and to be honest it very nearly succeeds up to the point where it gets bogged down in micromanagement and balance issues ("balance" in Aurora is a complicated word, but in the case of ground combat I would say there are too many obvious best/bad decisions to consider the system well-balanced, irrespective of whether a general optimum tactic exists as Aurora is never about optimal tactics). That being said there is still work being done on the systems involved so in time I think it can become a very streamlined yet detailed system rivaling ship design, but this will take a good deal of work yet.

The success however is in the adaptability of the system for roleplay. Sure, 8 million machine guns may be the optimal solution (at least against the NPRs), but if you read Steve's AARs you will find the system from a roleplay perspective is equally suited for modeling WH40K Imperial Guard, BSG Colonial Militia, Roman Legions, and more - to say nothing of what others on this forum have done including modeling real-world formations in impressive detail. The beauty of the system is that once you've designed your formation down to the individual unit level, you can handle it as a unit, so in theory the system seamlessly bridges to that huge planetary invasion scale. In practice of course the system still breaks down in many places where you still have to interact with individual units to manage your formations - replacing losses and upgrading formations being two big problem spaces here despite some recent improvements. I'm sure once Steve fully works out the abstraction (and the balance - on which I and many others of course have thoughts...) it will be an incredible system.

Aurora is not a 4x game, it is a naval sim built on top of a relatively simple empire manager. 

I don't agree with this. You cite the level of detail in certain mechanics as your rationale, however Aurora is categorically a 4X game - eXploration, eXpansion, eXploitation, and eXtermination are all present and make up the core gameplay loop around which all of these detailed, some might even claim simulationist mechanics are organized.

I won't try to pick Steve's brain too much as I haven't read or used the forums until now,

It does feel a tad presumptuous to attempt to capture the essence of the game without having done this, frankly. I don't mean to sound dismissive in saying so, but a great deal of what makes Aurora the special game it is can be found on these forums - in the interactions with fellow players, reading the many stories and AARs people have created, and reading the posts from Steve (and seeing how player-Steve interaction shapes the game over time as well). Steve has shared a lot of his thoughts on the game on this forum, so it is a valuable resource to try and really understand what he has set out to accomplish and how he chose to do that.

While I believe that focusing on the simulation aspects of Aurora would result in an objective improvement of its core gameplay, I remain concerned that that aspect of Aurora would be lost in the enhanced level of detail.   Perhaps it's unfounded? Maybe it would lead to more interesting, unexpected developments for both those interested in the game and those interested in storycrafting.   Either way, it's been on my mind for some time now, and I wanted to share these ideas and get feedback from the wider community.

I agree that an enhanced level of detail is largely not the way to go. In my mind, "focusing on the simulation aspects" should mean careful attention to eliminating or reworking the tedious parts of the gameplay loop more so than trying to make the game "more realistic" as many players have demanded at times.

[SikeSky (OP)]

. . .

Thanks for the detailed response! I agree with much of what you said, so I won't be replying to every note.  Totally not because I can't figure out how to quote from highlight.

I really have to dissent with this assessment.  In and of itself, +25% to a tech line is not terribly interesting, but in Aurora techs are interesting because you actually get to use them to design new ship components - unlike many other games where a tech is just the next power tier of the same component, repeat ad infinitum, in Aurora we have serious design changes as a result of technologies which make each new tech level an interesting mini-game of its own.  This does leave some techs which are incremental upgrades not tied to component design or new unlocks, but I think this is okay as not every tech has to be equally exciting anyways.

This, in particular, was great insight.  If I consider the research mechanic as less of an independent feature and more of a part of the fitting/design process for ships, then yes, they're far less objectionable.  Part of me asks, "But what is research in a strategy game, if not part of the design process for ships?" But I think Stellaris shows a decent example - beyond ship-specific upgrades, there are techs and tech "paths" that can radically alter the course and nature of your empire.  It's not often you get "CAUTION" signs on research options in a game. . .

I don't agree with this.  You cite the level of detail in certain mechanics as your rationale, however Aurora is categorically a 4X game - eXploration, eXpansion, eXploitation, and eXtermination are all present and make up the core gameplay loop around which all of these detailed, some might even claim simulationist mechanics are organized.

(I'm afraid I didn't understand the very last part - simulationist mechanics are organized?)
Categorically a 4x game, but different in the extreme from others in the genre if so.  Combat in the majority of 4x games, and especially space 4x games, consists of building a bigger fleet than your opponent and then parking ""Troop Ships"" over their planets.  If you're lucky, then orbital bombardment is a feature to make the process a little more exciting.  Aurora features combat mechanics closer to something like Harpoon than Masters of Orion or Endless Space, and if it didn't I wouldn't have played it for over seven years.
But, oddly enough, while warfare is far more interesting than Aurora, its also pretty rare - by the default settings! Obviously you can customize your world to your hearts content, but by default a player might not see an alien ship until the Invaders spawn.  Compare that to traditional 4x games, where twenty~forty minutes into a game, you'll know what the map looks like, who controls what territory, and who you're going to be launching a surprise attack against next turn.
Expansion and exploitation in Aurora is slow and methodical, involving massive logistic fleets if you want a colonization/industrialization effort accomplished in a timely fashion.  As you mentioned, in most 4x games you simply find the biggest, richest, most habitable planets, plop down some colonists, and auto-queue some industry.  Aurora focuses on how you accomplish things moreso than what you accomplished. Aurora is more memorable for the challenge, IMO, but that's also why it's so niche.  If you want to sit down and conquer the galaxy in a few hours, then Aurora is not going to fit the bill.  I have a friend that absolutely loves 4x games but he refuses to play Aurora after getting frustrated with building a geosurvey ship - something he could do with ~2 clicks in most games he'd played. 

Perhaps a worthwhile amendment would be that Aurora is a 4x simulation game, not a 4x strategy game.  Whenever friends or family ask about it, I honestly hesitate even calling it a game.

It does feel a tad presumptuous to attempt to capture the essence of the game without having done this, frankly.  I don't mean to sound dismissive in saying so, but a great deal of what makes Aurora the special game it is can be found on these forums - in the interactions with fellow players, reading the many stories and AARs people have created, and reading the posts from Steve (and seeing how player-Steve interaction shapes the game over time as well).  Steve has shared a lot of his thoughts on the game on this forum, so it is a valuable resource to try and really understand what he has set out to accomplish and how he chose to do that.

For sure; I figured I'd come across as a a bit of an imposter posting critique(?) like this on the community forum for the game.  That being said, I have played the game a lot, and nobody I know has any interest in the game, so the forums it was! 
If there is a condensed design topic to catch up on the history and current goals for the game, I'd absolutely be interested.  The same goes for the more technical side of the development.  Otherwise, sadly, I don't imagine I'll be posting that often.  I ask and answer questions on the Discord, but I prefer longform responses when I use forums and I cannot spare this kind of time regularly.  I'm procrastinating as we speak  :P

[nuclearslurpee]

Totally not because I can't figure out how to quote from highlight.

It is not possible on these forums. I usually quote the comment in question and then keep the parts I care about.

Perhaps a worthwhile amendment would be that Aurora is a 4x simulation game, not a 4x strategy game.  Whenever friends or family ask about it, I honestly hesitate even calling it a game.

I think this is a fair take. Aurora is certainly a 4X game, but equally certainly not like a traditional 4X game. I almost would think of it as: where in other games you have a set of +/- modifiers which describe your racial traits (+10% production, +3 starting ships, -25% fuel consumption, or whatever), in Aurora you build your unique race and traits from your gameplay choices - if you want "+10% production" as a staple of your race it is up to you to figure out how to make it happen and reap the long-term benefits.

It does feel a tad presumptuous to attempt to capture the essence of the game without having done this, frankly.  I don't mean to sound dismissive in saying so, but a great deal of what makes Aurora the special game it is can be found on these forums - in the interactions with fellow players, reading the many stories and AARs people have created, and reading the posts from Steve (and seeing how player-Steve interaction shapes the game over time as well).  Steve has shared a lot of his thoughts on the game on this forum, so it is a valuable resource to try and really understand what he has set out to accomplish and how he chose to do that.

If there is a condensed design topic to catch up on the history and current goals for the game, I'd absolutely be interested.  The same goes for the more technical side of the development.  Otherwise, sadly, I don't imagine I'll be posting that often.  I ask and answer questions on the Discord, but I prefer longform responses when I use forums and I cannot spare this kind of time regularly.  I'm procrastinating as we speak 

There is not a single place where the design history of Aurora is condensed into a single place (but that's an interesting idea for a #EffortPost sometime...), but it is helpful to know that Aurora was originally derived from a tabletop space wargame called Starfire, which has a similar premise as Aurora 4x but a very different implementation and set of mechanics due to being a tabletop rather than a pure computer game as Aurora is. Aurora itself is the successor to a program Steve wrote called Starfire Assistant (SA for short) which handled all of the grand-strategy elements of the game, leaving the player(s) to fight tactical space battles on a tabletop. To make a very long story short, after a lot of drama leading to a split in the Starfire community Steve created Aurora instead which is of course his personal vision of a space 4x game.

If you go through a lot of the older VB6 threads, especially the change logs and Steve's old AARs (Steve has a long tradition of using his AARs to introduce new additions to the community), you can get a sense of what changes and additions Steve made to the game over time, especially in terms of adding the spoiler races and NPR AI to allow for single-player games (in Starfire, every race was player-controlled out of necessity). The gameplay and narrative in those AARs also reflects the kind of game Steve is trying to design, so reading AARs is generally a good way to understand the design goals of Aurora.

[Garfunkel]

It's actually surprising how much Aurora has changed over the years. Well, soon decades 

We used to need to bring cargo ships carrying Jump Gate Components to a JP and the construction ship would use them to build the jump gate. FACs used to be GunBoats with their special engines and fighters & missiles also had their special engines. At one point commercial and military shipyards and ships were the same size.