Suggestions Thread for v2.4.0

[Garfunkel]

Make it so that empty fleets can be moved to waypoints in addition to colonies since we cannot make colonies on gas giants.

[Black]

Make it so that empty fleets can be moved to waypoints in addition to colonies since we cannot make colonies on gas giants.

I believe this is possible if you select Rendezvous type of Waypoint.

[Nappy]

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.

Thank you. Is there any way to make reorganizing depleted ground units more feasible? I've been having trouble with it and wanted to ask if there can be a mechanic for regenerating them to full strength (using the ground formation buildings) once they return home from an expedition.

[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.

Thank you. Is there any way to make reorganizing depleted ground units more feasible? I've been having trouble with it and wanted to ask if there can be a mechanic for regenerating them to full strength (using the ground formation buildings) once they return home from an expedition.

You can use replacement ground units and they will refill from those automatically.

[paolot]

In the Shipyard list, would it be possible to give evidence of the ones with "No Class Assigned", e.g. using another color of the text?
If there are several SYs, this information could be lost.

Then, can I suggest again that a message should appear in the column "Current Activity" when a shipyard is building a ship? something like "Building ship(s)" or "Shipyard(s) Busy", instead of "No activity".
Because building a ship is an activity of a shipyard.

[nuclearslurpee]

In the Shipyard list, would it be possible to give evidence of the ones with "No Class Assigned", e.g. using another color of the text?
If there are several SYs, this information could be lost.

Supported. Trying to read this information off the table is annoying.

Then, can I suggest again that a message should appear in the column "Current Activity" when a shipyard is building a ship? something like "Building ship(s)" or "Shipyard(s) Busy", instead of "No activity".
Because building a ship is an activity of a shipyard.

"Shipyard Activity" refers to things like expanding the yard, adding a slipway, retooling, etc. It is perhaps a tad confusing as a word choice, but the current implementation works fine otherwise - if a shipyard is currently free for an "Activity" that's information I want to know, if I want to see whether a shipyard has slipways available that is in a different column, no need to display it twice.

For example, if I want to design a new ship class, I might design a 15,000-ton ship if that shipyard has No Activity, instead of a 20,000-ton ship if that shipyard is halfway through adding a slipway. So that is why the "No Activity" status is relevant and meaningful.

[alex_brunius]

Because building a ship is an activity of a shipyard.

Technically the ship is not built by the "shipyard" itself but by one of it's slipways, thus the correct place to see how many of the slipways are free is in the "SW" (Slipways) and "Avail"(Available Slipways) columns.

Because with the logic of using the shipyard it would be entirly possible that the Shipyard is for example 14.28% busy building ships (1 out of 7 slipways in use).

What might make sense to make the UI a bit more beginner friendly is to combine the two columns to a single one and write out the whole name as "Available Slipways" 6/7 instead (in the example of having 1 out of 7 total slipways in use).

Instead of "No Activity" the text could also be changed to say "No Shipyard Modification" and column title could change from "Current Activity" into "Shipyard Modification"

[nakorkren]

In the Fleet Movement Orders tab, could the list of orders include the distance and/or time to complete each order to the right of the order on that line, like the example below? Could be in what ever the most significant unit of distance/time is, or whatever makes it easy, but some indication of how long it's going to take for each move would be helpful since right now the only way to glean that (without adding one order step at a time and taking notes on the delta as you add each step) is to go to the system the fleet is currently in and look on the map, which only tells you the first step.

JP1: Rana (JG): Standard Transit (1.7B km, 2.1 days)
JP3: Polaris (JG): Standard Transit (981 km, 23.2 hours)

[skoormit]

When deleting formations (in the Ground Forces window, OOB tab), it would be nice if the treeview control in the left pane did not re-expand all collapsed nodes.

[paolot]

Class Design window, in the list of the installed systems in a class, next the name of each chosen item, would it be possible to indicate its weight/size (in the case, multiplied by the number of the installed ones), or indicate the mass/size of the type of systems (let's say, all the engines, all the lasers, etc.)?
IMO, it would help in balancing the weights, or in finding the item(s) to improve with new research project(s).

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

Class Design window, in the list of the installed systems in a class, next the name of each chosen item, would it be possible to indicate its weight/size (in the case, multiplied by the number of the installed ones), or indicate the mass/size of the type of systems (let's say, all the engines, all the lasers, etc.)?
IMO, it would help in balancing the weights, or in finding the item(s) to improve with new research project(s).

Check the components tab.

[paolot]

Thank you, Steve.
It's my laziness in changing tab, and hope to read everything in the same place. 

[paolot]

In the event, when a fleet arrives to a site for the overhaul, is it possible to indicate that ships are beginning this?
The event now says "Fleet X has completed orders. Orbiting ABC". Personally, reading this, I open the Naval Organization window to understand what ships are doing (I don't remember the orders of tens of fleets...!). But, at least in the case of overhaul, I think it wouldn't be necessary, because they will be stationary for several turns. Instead, for other situations I could issue other orders, so i need to open that window.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

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.

I've added two new minimum refuel orders using the class minimum capacity, plus I have added the option to specify an amount per ship to four existing orders. This should cover most cases.

The concept of adding just enough fuel to get somewhere is a lot tricker, because the distance at the time of refuelling might change due to the subsequent orbits of planets and Lagrange points or the movement of target fleets.

http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=13463.msg171244#msg171244

[db48x]

I once created a prototype that demonstrated a way to compute the exact quickest route across a system, even with a moving destination. It ends up computing the exact time the flight will take and the exact distance covered. If that were a regular part of the game it would allow you to load just enough fuel.

I think the real reason not to do it is that you’ll always want extra fuel on board to cover unexpected circumstances, like occasionally running away from raiders.