Author Topic: Suggestions Thread for v2.0  (Read 85950 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline superstrijder15

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • s
  • Posts: 73
  • Thanked: 22 times
Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.0
« Reply #705 on: December 03, 2023, 09:39:06 AM »
Reinforcement Building or feature on existing recruitment ground force building.

I posted this months ago but with all the activity i'm going to chance my arm again.

Could there be a new building or feature in the ground force units building to slowly reinforce existing ground units stationed on the planet with the building.
The current reinforcing mechanics would stay in place and be crucial in reinforcing front line positions fast.

But more for peacetime or light spoiler engagements.  The ability to have a building set to reinforce at a trickle speed to bring armies back up to full strength over time would be a nice QOL improvement.
Multiple buildings speed up the process but have diminishing returns.  This would allow for the creation of recruitment worlds where dedicated reinforcement armies go back to resupply and be ready for the next large scale fast reinforcements, this would save having to rebuild new reinforcement armies each time.

It could be that the reinforcement building is "loaded" with a new (2. 2) organization or template and in the background has every unit already built in a sort of ghost reinforcement unplayable army.  this way when you land your real army on the planet the two armies react the same way as they do now just at a much slower rate.

Population of a body could also be a factor in reinforcement speed.

I think this capability of essentially repairing damaged units would be very useful. Right now reconstructing an army after an invasion is pretty micro intensive, it would be nice if you could say put in an order in the ground forces window to adjust a military formation and its children to fit the org chart of one of your organizations and have all formations at full strength. Then it should calculate which elements need to be trained, and then the units trained. In practice, it would be like building an organization but subtracting what you already have.

Another feature that I would like GU construction to gain is the ability to refit elements. I guess there should be limits to this but it should in my eyes be possible to take a division from 20 years ago, and upgrade each component unit to the current level of armour and weaponry strength for some cost lower than building entirely new unit. That could represent giving new equipment to veteran soldiers rather than firing them and hiring new people.
 
The following users thanked this post: papent

Offline SevenOfCarina

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 170
  • Thanked: 95 times
Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.0
« Reply #706 on: December 03, 2023, 11:18:49 AM »
One thing to keep in mind is that even if larger missiles have lower damage per MSP due to mounting penaids, etc. the idea is that they will still deliver more damage per salvo due to all those penaids making it harder to kill them. Whether this idea works in practice is something we need to figure out with a lot of playtesting since all of these new missile options are new and not yet well understood.

I do like the idea in concept, just think we need to get more data as a playerbase before we start making more changes to missiles.  :)

They don't. This can be checked mathematically. Consider a 4.0 MSP missile with 1.5 MSP of payload (so ECCM, one decoy, and 0.75 MSP of warhead) that needs four AMMs or gauss shots to kill. To maintain the same penetration rate (i.e., the same fraction of salvos make it through defences), an 8.0 MSP missile should need twice as many AMMs or gauss shots to kill. Because of how decoys scale, this needs an additional three decoys.

But an 8.0 MSP missile will only have 3.25 MSP of payload (after accounting for increased engine size efficiency), so adding three more decoys will imply 1.0 MSP of warhead, which is ~50% less warhead per MSP of missile compared to the 4.0 MSP missile. If you choose to add only two extra decoys to conserve warhead size per MSP, a smaller fraction of the salvo will penetrate defences, leading to lower total damage. And this isn't even accounting for multiple warheads, which are brutal towards additional decoys.

 

Offline Snoman314

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 127
  • Thanked: 39 times
Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.0
« Reply #707 on: December 03, 2023, 12:33:21 PM »
One thing to keep in mind is that even if larger missiles have lower damage per MSP due to mounting penaids, etc. the idea is that they will still deliver more damage per salvo due to all those penaids making it harder to kill them. Whether this idea works in practice is something we need to figure out with a lot of playtesting since all of these new missile options are new and not yet well understood.

I do like the idea in concept, just think we need to get more data as a playerbase before we start making more changes to missiles.  :)

Yeah I agree that more testing is needed to confirm all the theory. I was referring to a missile that had enough penaids to be what _looks like_ the same chances of penetrating defences, as an equivalent set of smaller missiles. But I don't know what the real outcomes will be until I can get down to some proper testing. At least we can shoot at our own ships to test things now!

Seven put their finger right on the thing that I'd noticed here:

They don't. This can be checked mathematically. Consider a 4.0 MSP missile with 1.5 MSP of payload (so ECCM, one decoy, and 0.75 MSP of warhead) that needs four AMMs or gauss shots to kill. To maintain the same penetration rate (i.e., the same fraction of salvos make it through defences), an 8.0 MSP missile should need twice as many AMMs or gauss shots to kill. Because of how decoys scale, this needs an additional three decoys.

But an 8.0 MSP missile will only have 3.25 MSP of payload (after accounting for increased engine size efficiency), so adding three more decoys will imply 1.0 MSP of warhead, which is ~50% less warhead per MSP of missile compared to the 4.0 MSP missile. If you choose to add only two extra decoys to conserve warhead size per MSP, a smaller fraction of the salvo will penetrate defences, leading to lower total damage. And this isn't even accounting for multiple warheads, which are brutal towards additional decoys.


« Last Edit: December 03, 2023, 12:36:57 PM by Snoman314 »
 

Offline Mint Keyphase

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • Posts: 54
  • Thanked: 2 times
Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.0
« Reply #708 on: December 04, 2023, 03:45:51 AM »
UI scale and font size pls?
 

Offline SpaceMarine

  • Bug Moderators
  • Rear Admiral
  • ***
  • Posts: 904
  • Thanked: 877 times
Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.0
« Reply #709 on: December 05, 2023, 04:54:09 PM »
Hello,

I would like to suggest the features 'Auto-Construct', 'Auto-repair' 'Auto-scrap' '

Currently we have auto refit, however if we were to extend the auto nature to scrapping, constructing and repairing it would greatly reduce clicks needed for say creating a large scale fleet of FAC or any other vessel that you want to construct, it would also allow you to set auto repair and have your entire fleet be repaired over time with no additional clicks required!.

I submit this suggestion because my arms hurt and so do my wrists, also because its relatively atleast from my view easy to implement as auto-refit has already been implemented and it uses the same window and interface.
 
The following users thanked this post: smoelf

Offline Hazard

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • H
  • Posts: 643
  • Thanked: 73 times
Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.0
« Reply #710 on: December 05, 2023, 07:10:09 PM »
Hello,

I would like to suggest the features 'Auto-Construct', 'Auto-repair' 'Auto-scrap' '

Currently we have auto refit, however if we were to extend the auto nature to scrapping, constructing and repairing it would greatly reduce clicks needed for say creating a large scale fleet of FAC or any other vessel that you want to construct, it would also allow you to set auto repair and have your entire fleet be repaired over time with no additional clicks required!.

I submit this suggestion because my arms hurt and so do my wrists, also because its relatively atleast from my view easy to implement as auto-refit has already been implemented and it uses the same window and interface.

I would love to be able to queue up a number of ships for a shipyard and just have the shipyard start construction as slips become available. Doesn't even need to be an endless feature, preferably not actually, I just want to be able to queue up a dozen frigates to expand my navy and not have to think about how many of the number I've planned I've got now one has rolled out of dock.


Also, with the ground unit terrain type table by Nuclearslurpee in mind (link is http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=13369.msg166544#msg166544), I propose new terrain type specializations.

Amphibious, applies to; Archipelago, Jungle, Rainforest and Swamp.
Forest, applies to; any Forest/Forested terrain, Taiga and Sub-Tropical Terrains, and is infantry only.
and Flatlands, applies to; Arid, Barren, Chapparal, Cold Desert, Cold Steppe, Desert, Grassland, Hot Desert, Ice Fields, Savannah, Steppe, Subarctic and Tundra.
 
The following users thanked this post: QuakeIV, smoelf

Offline nuclearslurpee

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 3009
  • Thanked: 2265 times
  • Radioactive frozen beverage.
Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.0
« Reply #711 on: December 05, 2023, 07:26:53 PM »
Also, with the ground unit terrain type table by Nuclearslurpee in mind (link is http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=13369.msg166544#msg166544), I propose new terrain type specializations.

Amphibious, applies to; Archipelago, Jungle, Rainforest and Swamp.
Forest, applies to; any Forest/Forested terrain, Taiga and Sub-Tropical Terrains, and is infantry only.
and Flatlands, applies to; Arid, Barren, Chapparal, Cold Desert, Cold Steppe, Desert, Grassland, Hot Desert, Ice Fields, Savannah, Steppe, Subarctic and Tundra.

I wouldn't want to add specializations just so every terrain type has a specialization. The fact that some terrain types lack specialization creates an interesting, if minor, decision space - for example, when selecting a planet for a military base you might have a choice between a jungle planet, which is easier to defend but leaves you open to the risk of the enemy deploying jungle-specialist units, or a forest planet, which is not as good for the defender but does not carry the risk of being overcome by specialized opponents. Of course, you also have the option of defending the jungle planet with jungle-specialized troops, at a higher cost in exchange for eliminating the risk.

If we just add a capability for every terrain type, then we lose some distinctiveness from different terrain types and it becomes purely a numbers game. I admit this is a small, uncommon, and usually low-impact decision but I would still prefer to keep it as-is.

That being said... I would definitely like to see an "Amphibious" specialization and the ability to train proper Marines in the traditional sense. This should apply to Archipelago and Swamp terrains currently but we would probably want to add a couple more water-based terrain types. I'd prefer not to apply this to jungle, tropical, etc. terrains both to avoid duplicating terrain capabilities and because that's not really how marines/naval infantry historically have been trained - sometimes there is overlap but it is not the norm and we can stack capabilities if we want to roleplay the exceptions.
 
The following users thanked this post: superstrijder15

Offline SpaceMarine

  • Bug Moderators
  • Rear Admiral
  • ***
  • Posts: 904
  • Thanked: 877 times
Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.0
« Reply #712 on: December 05, 2023, 08:21:48 PM »
Hello,

I would like to suggest the features 'Auto-Construct', 'Auto-repair' 'Auto-scrap' '

Currently we have auto refit, however if we were to extend the auto nature to scrapping, constructing and repairing it would greatly reduce clicks needed for say creating a large scale fleet of FAC or any other vessel that you want to construct, it would also allow you to set auto repair and have your entire fleet be repaired over time with no additional clicks required!.

I submit this suggestion because my arms hurt and so do my wrists, also because its relatively atleast from my view easy to implement as auto-refit has already been implemented and it uses the same window and interface.

I would love to be able to queue up a number of ships for a shipyard and just have the shipyard start construction as slips become available. Doesn't even need to be an endless feature, preferably not actually, I just want to be able to queue up a dozen frigates to expand my navy and not have to think about how many of the number I've planned I've got now one has rolled out of dock.


Also, with the ground unit terrain type table by Nuclearslurpee in mind (link is http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=13369.msg166544#msg166544), I propose new terrain type specializations.

Amphibious, applies to; Archipelago, Jungle, Rainforest and Swamp.
Forest, applies to; any Forest/Forested terrain, Taiga and Sub-Tropical Terrains, and is infantry only.
and Flatlands, applies to; Arid, Barren, Chapparal, Cold Desert, Cold Steppe, Desert, Grassland, Hot Desert, Ice Fields, Savannah, Steppe, Subarctic and Tundra.

I agree, however i made my suggestion in the way i did because i wanted it to be as mechanically similar as possible so it would be easier to implement. obviously id love if i could go 'build 24 destroyers with this shipyard' and for it to then tell me how long that would take with current slipways etc and estimated date
 
The following users thanked this post: QuakeIV, Ush213

Offline Hazard

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • H
  • Posts: 643
  • Thanked: 73 times
Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.0
« Reply #713 on: December 05, 2023, 08:55:24 PM »
Thing is, successfully operating in some of those environments as a military are things that may not require specialist skills, and there's certainly overlap between Forest and Jungle, they are terrain types you can specialize a unit into, by way of doctrine, training and equipment, and expect them to do better than a unit that isn't. Right now a unit with mountain and jungle capabilities does as well on a savanna or prairie as any other unit, despite most likely being prepared for a very different sort of combat than what such wide open fields and rolling hills permit. I want the ability to go 'these guys are absolutely trained and equipped with a doctrine designed to eke out every advantage possible on flatlands, and will ruin the day of those who were not'.

The ground forces game is already a numbers game, it's just a different numbers game because there are specializations for some types of terrain but not for others, and some conditions over others. Right now the best defense against an attack on a world where no capability modifier exists, like Temperate Forest for most species, is to simply exploit the fact that units with no capabilities are noticeably cheaper to construct with the same combat stats than units with capabilities, and to beat the opponent to death with your numbers advantage. A capability option would offer you a choice, to gamble on numbers, or to gamble on the capability being more effective than it's expensive once you account for the lower space lift requirements.

I first considered making Archipelago and Swamp the only Amphibious options, and I would love a greater variety of water based terrain types, but I added Rainforest and Jungle (and not their Mountain and Rift Valley sub-types) because that would leave a very niche capability and, AFAIK, most rainforests and jungles are very wet areas where travel by river is often the most convenient unless you can fly or are willing to spend a lot of effort on carving a road through the dense mass of trees, and if the dominant terrain isn't some variety of Mountain or Rift Valley most waterways should not have problems like rapids or waterfalls.

(Also, Forest and Jungle capabilities should be mutually exclusive but still have a lessened effect on the Jungle/Forest terrain type respectively.)
 

Offline Mint Keyphase

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • Posts: 54
  • Thanked: 2 times
Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.0
« Reply #714 on: December 06, 2023, 02:58:56 AM »
1. Ability to SM modify traits of commanders (RP value)
2. Ability to SM modify buff of commanders (QoL, and also RP value) 
3. Ability to SM modify crew training (QoL, and RP experienced crew transferring)
 

Offline nuclearslurpee

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 3009
  • Thanked: 2265 times
  • Radioactive frozen beverage.
Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.0
« Reply #715 on: December 06, 2023, 04:44:43 PM »
Small QoL improvement: Allow research projects to be set up with zero assigned labs.

The main reason for this is for cases where, if all researchers with assigned projects are using their full admin capacity, another project can be set up with "Assign New Labs" enabled, to eliminate a small micromanagement inconvenience and to safeguard against missing the "Inactive Labs" event notification. It could also be useful as a way for some players to remember what they wanted to do next after some other project finished.
 
The following users thanked this post: Garfunkel, superstrijder15, BAGrimm

Offline SevenOfCarina

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 170
  • Thanked: 95 times
Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.0
« Reply #716 on: December 07, 2023, 01:51:15 PM »
Add a tech series for "Maximum Sorium Harvesting Diameter", similar to the current "Maximum Orbital Mining Diameter" techs.

Obtaining fuel from gas giants is far too easy right now, and it's basically impossible to run them dry since they spawn with millions of tons of sorium. This would reduce the fraction of gas giants that are exploitable in the early game, and spur redevelopment in the mid game as higher-quality sorium reserves within your territory become exploitable.
 
The following users thanked this post: Kaiser, QuakeIV

Offline Nori

  • Bug Moderators
  • Lt. Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 234
  • Thanked: 42 times
  • Discord Username: Nori Silverrage
  • Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter : Support the forums with a Bronze subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.0
« Reply #717 on: December 07, 2023, 03:38:21 PM »
I don't believe this is possible currently. It'd be nice if we can filter health/retirement events to exclude unassigned people. I care about my governors, naval admin, scientists and such, but my even log is filled with retirements and ya know, unimportant people..
 

Offline nuclearslurpee

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 3009
  • Thanked: 2265 times
  • Radioactive frozen beverage.
Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.0
« Reply #718 on: December 07, 2023, 10:25:12 PM »
Add a tech series for "Maximum Sorium Harvesting Diameter", similar to the current "Maximum Orbital Mining Diameter" techs.

Obtaining fuel from gas giants is far too easy right now, and it's basically impossible to run them dry since they spawn with millions of tons of sorium. This would reduce the fraction of gas giants that are exploitable in the early game, and spur redevelopment in the mid game as higher-quality sorium reserves within your territory become exploitable.

I'm not a fan. I already find it a bit tricky to find a sorium-bearing gas giant that is in the right place with sufficiently high accessibility, especially with Raiders as this adds a requirement that the gas giant be in a system which can support a defensive force.

Perhaps an alternative would be to reduce the amount of sorium so that it is possible to run these gas giants dry in a reasonable time frame?
 
The following users thanked this post: superstrijder15

Offline xenoscepter

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1159
  • Thanked: 320 times
Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.0
« Reply #719 on: December 08, 2023, 12:09:55 AM »
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=13382.msg166815#msg166815

 --- I made a quick proposition for how Shield Generators, as a component, might be made more interesting and less linear.