Suggestions Thread for v2.4.0

[LuuBluum]

A perennial suggestion but one I'll continue to make, it'd be my dream for ground support fighters to be replaced with an aircraft-type unit.

Like... if you manage to put that into the next release (whenever that'll be), that'll be the perfect version and barring bugfixes I would desire no new features.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

A perennial suggestion but one I'll continue to make, it'd be my dream for ground support fighters to be replaced with an aircraft-type unit.

Like... if you manage to put that into the next release (whenever that'll be), that'll be the perfect version and barring bugfixes I would desire no new features.

I know ground support doesn't really work, so I will sort that at some point.

[alex_brunius]

A perennial suggestion but one I'll continue to make, it'd be my dream for ground support fighters to be replaced with an aircraft-type unit.

Like... if you manage to put that into the next release (whenever that'll be), that'll be the perfect version and barring bugfixes I would desire no new features.

I know ground support doesn't really work, so I will sort that at some point.

Airsupport (Space/Air/Ground) in general IMO is a very tricky area to balance in all games, which is prone to end up either overpowered or too weak to be useful at all, because it's very hard to account for the sheer complexity in possible interactions (size of forces, types of forces, types of weapons & units, types of terrains & other modifiers). It's also very easily exploitable with a simple implementation by using a minimal throw away ground force just to "check a box" and then blast the living bejeezus out of a large enemy ground force with a massive air/space force.

The most realistic implementations of Air Support that I have seen in other games is where the main reason to use it is not direct damage but various bonuses and force multipliers for the boots on the ground (which I think could be a bit tricky to show well in the Aurora C# UI). That gives a clear (and controllable) cap of how much benefit it can provide maximum, which can be scaled until your happy with balance. It's also more realistic because no serious landwar can be won without a competent ground force, and there is alot of real diminishing returns when just throwing more bombs/rockets/orbital strikes stops being useful because the enemy either adapted or became desperate enough to disperse forces among the civilian population & installations to ensure you will be conquering nothing but ashes.

Some brainstorming ideas:
- Air/Space support which can break up a stalemate (no one want to attack because both sides are heavily dug in) => Reduce effective enemy dug in bonus lowering damage for your supported ground forces. This should not be able to reduce the defensive bonus from terrain (since jungles and mountains lower effectiveness of airsupport also).
- Air/Space support which can take out STOs with lower collateral damage (drop a smaller force to assist taking out numerous well dug in STOs in mountainous terrain planets) => Greatly Increased accuracy for attacks vs STOs when there are friendly ground formations with FFD available.
- Air/Space support which increase fighting efficiency of supported ground forces => x% higher attack/avoidance values for formations with FFD support due threat of airsupport lowering enemy options and providing friendly recon.

I do think that the approach with FFD is correct here and something that should be expanded upon even if allocations could be much better handled/automated as it's micro-hell currently to assign hundreds of ground support fighters. What I feel is missing from this mechanic is a maximum amount of "tonnage" size formation per FFD so you cannot abuse bonuses by making a massive formation with a single FFD. A FFD equipped light vehicle is 72 ton so I would suggest maximum bonuses being reached when having at least 1 FFD component per either 1000 or 2000ton (7.2% or 3.6% tonnage as LVH-FFD for full bonus).

With this approach the current damage values (which are on the low side) can be kept as they are.

Some other QoL/Balancing ideas:
- Ground support fighters (or perhaps any ship) below certain size probably shouldn't become wrecks when destroyed to lower micromanagement.
- AA needs to be balanced to not be binary or lower/counteract the ground support bonus instead (currently below a certain value it does nothing, and above it all fighters will be massacred).
- It would be helpful to be able to build dedicated ground support fighter designs with GFCC
- Treat them as wings/not clutter the Naval OOB as much, own UI window?.
(although I can imagine that the last two would not be fun/easy to code)

[skoormit]

I like to leave fuel stations at all jump points throughout my core systems, to facilitate cross-empire travel by ships without very large fuel range.

I find myself quite often manually refueling a fleet just enough to get to the next refueling point (or the fleet's ultimate destination).

Suggestion for new fleet orders: "Refuel (Minimal)" and "Refuel (Minimal) from Stationary Tankers"
These orders behave like the current refuel orders, but instead of completely filling each ship in the fleet, refuel each ship in the fleet sufficiently to reach the next refuel order in the order list (plus perhaps a small error margin, like 1%), or to reach the last order in the list if there are no subsequent refuel orders.
If the fuel source is emptied before providing sufficient fuel, or if any ship in the fleet is completely refueled but still cannot reach the next refuel order, generate an interrupt event (but continue the order list--do not clear the list).

[nuclearslurpee]

I like to leave fuel stations at all jump points throughout my core systems, to facilitate cross-empire travel by ships without very large fuel range.

I find myself quite often manually refueling a fleet just enough to get to the next refueling point (or the fleet's ultimate destination).

Suggestion for new fleet orders: "Refuel (Minimal)" and "Refuel (Minimal) from Stationary Tankers"
These orders behave like the current refuel orders, but instead of completely filling each ship in the fleet, refuel each ship in the fleet sufficiently to reach the next refuel order in the order list (plus perhaps a small error margin, like 1%), or to reach the last order in the list if there are no subsequent refuel orders.
If the fuel source is emptied before providing sufficient fuel, or if any ship in the fleet is completely refueled but still cannot reach the next refuel order, generate an interrupt event (but continue the order list--do not clear the list).

IMO, it would be sufficient and general enough to make the logistical orders (refuel, resupply, reload, etc.) make use if the "Minimum" field in the orders interface.

[skoormit]

I like to leave fuel stations at all jump points throughout my core systems, to facilitate cross-empire travel by ships without very large fuel range.

I find myself quite often manually refueling a fleet just enough to get to the next refueling point (or the fleet's ultimate destination).

Suggestion for new fleet orders: "Refuel (Minimal)" and "Refuel (Minimal) from Stationary Tankers"
These orders behave like the current refuel orders, but instead of completely filling each ship in the fleet, refuel each ship in the fleet sufficiently to reach the next refuel order in the order list (plus perhaps a small error margin, like 1%), or to reach the last order in the list if there are no subsequent refuel orders.
If the fuel source is emptied before providing sufficient fuel, or if any ship in the fleet is completely refueled but still cannot reach the next refuel order, generate an interrupt event (but continue the order list--do not clear the list).

IMO, it would be sufficient and general enough to make the logistical orders (refuel, resupply, reload, etc.) make use if the "Minimum" field in the orders interface.

That would be a useful feature, but it doesn't seem like it would help in this case, because different ships in the fleet might require different amounts of fuel.
Also, it would require calculating ahead of time how much fuel will be needed, which requires manual calculation work rather than just refueling until ships have the necessary range.
And it would not be useful at all for order templates, again because different ships will need different amounts of fuel.

[nuclearslurpee]

I like to leave fuel stations at all jump points throughout my core systems, to facilitate cross-empire travel by ships without very large fuel range.

I find myself quite often manually refueling a fleet just enough to get to the next refueling point (or the fleet's ultimate destination).

Suggestion for new fleet orders: "Refuel (Minimal)" and "Refuel (Minimal) from Stationary Tankers"
These orders behave like the current refuel orders, but instead of completely filling each ship in the fleet, refuel each ship in the fleet sufficiently to reach the next refuel order in the order list (plus perhaps a small error margin, like 1%), or to reach the last order in the list if there are no subsequent refuel orders.
If the fuel source is emptied before providing sufficient fuel, or if any ship in the fleet is completely refueled but still cannot reach the next refuel order, generate an interrupt event (but continue the order list--do not clear the list).

IMO, it would be sufficient and general enough to make the logistical orders (refuel, resupply, reload, etc.) make use if the "Minimum" field in the orders interface.

That would be a useful feature, but it doesn't seem like it would help in this case, because different ships in the fleet might require different amounts of fuel.
Also, it would require calculating ahead of time how much fuel will be needed, which requires manual calculation work rather than just refueling until ships have the necessary range.
And it would not be useful at all for order templates, again because different ships will need different amounts of fuel.

It might not be optimal for this specific need, but it would be very useful in a wide range of cases which IMO is a better thing to implement. Also easier and less error-prone, I would think.

I have many cases where I would like to take or leave X amount of fuel or MSP but instead I have to manually watch the levels while advancing time. Having some way to set a value and move on with the game would eliminate a lot of micromanagement for me, and I don't mind having to do occasional napkin math while playing with my spaceship spreadsheet personally.

[Garfunkel]

Ability to tractor wrecks.

Ability to export/import ground force units, formations and organizations, both independently of tech levels and taking them into account. This would make it possible for us to build a library of historically accurate armies that players could just plug'n'play as the old advertising jingle went.

[skoormit]

On the Empire Mining tab, would it be possible to squeeze in a column that shows the total stockpile of all minerals at a body?
Would make it easier to scan the list for colonies that have sufficient minerals to fill a freighter.

[Lumpy]

Here are my pretty please with a cherry on top wishes for small QoL changes for the next version:

1. Add a Refuel until full movement order for tankers. This would reduce the micro involved with gas giant harvesting stations so much.

2. Add an option to Highlight science projects which are not at lab cap in the science window. This would really help in managing science in low research rate, limited scientist admin games in which you have potentially dozens and dozens of research projects running simultaneously.

3. Add an option to choose the new system an unexplored JP leads to when in SM mode. I think this feature was in the legacy version of Aurora if I recall correctly. This would be great for RP purposes when you for example want to guarantee certain systems near Sol appearing in your game.

And maybe a bigger wish that is slightly (lol) out of scope for the next version:

Add air units as standard ground elements. They would only need light extra rules (can only be attacked by AA, maybe have their own field position depending on which enemy field position you want to attack). This would potentially make AI air units finally a thing without requiring extensive AI coding.

[skoormit]

Add the ability to rename waypoints.

I often find myself wishing an existing waypoint had a different name.
The only option currently is to delete and recreate.

[TMaekler]

Doing a ground invasion of an alien home world, and the information is overwhelming. Would it be possible to handle ground combat reports in a separate tab of the ground forces window, rather than (or in addition to) via the event list? When the enemy has dozens of unit types, the paragraph format of estimated ground forces is extremely difficult to absorb. It would be a lot easier if it were presented in table format in a specific tab of the ground forces window.

I know UI isn't super high on the list of priorities, but hopefully Steve will be doing a home world invasion in his current game and take pity on us!

Don't forget you can hide most of the events. In major ground combat, I just leave the overall results events and the intel events, so it is very easy to read. If you need to see the hidden events without un-hiding them individually, use See All Events on the events window.

Building upon Steve's idea, I propose the following: allow players to create and save multiple custom visibility profiles for events. Each profile could include specific settings for which events are displayed, hidden, or collapsed. A convenient way to switch between saved profiles quickly, perhaps using a dropdown menu would be beneficial.

This feature would allow players to tailor their event display to suit their playstyle and preferences, improving efficiency by quickly switching between different visibility settings for various game scenarios (e.g., ground invasions, space battles, diplomacy). Furthermore, reducing visual clutter and improving focus during intense gameplay moments would enhance the overall user experience.

[buczbucz]

1. Naval Organization -> Select Fleet -> Movement Orders -> Load Installations / Load Minerals / Load Ship Components / Load Ground units
Add a bracket that shows how many cargo holds each of those items take.
Same way as it's already implemented in Economics -> Civilian / Flags screen.

2. Naval Organization -> Select Fleet -> Load Ground units
Add a bracket that shows how many tons each unit weights.

SJW: Added both for v2.6

[Nappy]

Ive had some issues with ground management, even after the update. I would suggest there being a mechanic for ground training units to replenish depleted ground units on a planet if given orders to, since such units (especially in large numbers  ) are hard to track manually.

[nakorkren]

When obsoleting technology in the View Technology window, the "Obsolete" button obsoletes the selected item but then focus stays on the two buttons at the bottom. If focus stayed (or was returned to) the next item on the list, it would be much easier to obsolete a significant number of old items (e.g. every magnetoplasma engine you ever researched or prototyped, once you get to magnetic fusion engines).

An even better option would be the "Obsolete" button applying to every item you selected. We already have the ability to multiselect in the UI for that list, but presently hitting the "Obsolete" button only obsoletes the top-most selected item.