Suggestions Thread for v2.4.0

[nuclearslurpee]

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

Will these also work with populations, to allow dropping off X amount of fuel, MSP, etc. on distant planets?

[nakorkren]

Suggest/request adding a filter to the Naval Organization window that lets you filter the list of admins and fleets by system, i.e. only show ships in Sol. This would make it easier to figure out what your options are for responding to an enemy appearing in a specific system. Bonus points if you could pick the filter system plus a radius, e.g. show all fleets in or within one jump of Sol.

[Garfunkel]

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.

Sadly, it is not possible.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

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.

Sadly, it is not possible.

It is. If you create a rendezvous waypoint, then it appears as a valid location for moving a fleet in SM mode (on the Misc tab of the Fleet window).

[Garfunkel]

Well shiver me timbers and call me Nancy, I restarted Aurora and now it works. I have no idea why it did not work before.

[paolot]

Three proposals for the Galactic Map.
1. Next each system, it would be nice to have also an icon for the ground units (if present), like we have for the fleets.
2. In the Overview tab, I think it could be useful to have also information about the Lagrange Points in the selected system: the number of them in the summary of the system bodies at least (as having also them in the mini system map, together with the JPs, request to recalculate their positions at each turn, while their possible total is deducible from the number of large planets there).
3. Together with the data about known and (grav)surveyed systems, it could be interesting to have also the fully geosurveyed ones.

[nuclearslurpee]

Three proposals for the Galactic Map.
1. Next each system, it would be nice to have also an icon for the ground units (if present), like we have for the fleets.

Not a bad idea.

2. In the Overview tab, I think it could be useful to have also information about the Lagrange Points in the selected system: the number of them in the summary of the system bodies at least (as having also them in the mini system map, together with the JPs, request to recalculate their positions at each turn, while their possible total is deducible from the number of large planets there).

I think the most useful way to display this is in the mini system map in the lower-left, as an (orange?) ring around each star in the system that is orbited by a body with a LP. Reason being that LPs are, at best, marginally useful for moving between planets orbiting the same star (sometimes they'll line up and you can shave time off, otherwise they don't do much), but are extremely useful for traveling between distant binaries, etc.

3. Together with the data about known and (grav)surveyed systems, it could be interesting to have also the fully geosurveyed ones.

Also a good idea.

[skoormit]

How about "Land on Any Mothership (No Assign)" as an order?

I do a lot of landing on carriers when one or more of the following is true:
1) There's only one carrier in the fleet.
2) There are multiple carriers, but I don't know which ones have free space.
3) I'm landing multiple ships across multiple carriers and I don't care which ships end up on which carrier.

In these cases, an order such as the above would save quite a bit of clicks and/or time (trying to figure out which carrier(s) have free space in a large fleet).

[skoormit]

Two new size options for mass drivers:

Mass Driver - Small
size and capacity: 20% of standard Mass Driver
cost: 25% of standard Mass Driver

Mass Driver - Large
size and capacity: 500% of standard Mass Driver
cost: 400% of standard Mass Driver


Reasoning:
A large majority of the OM-eligible asteroids in the early game have less than 25kt of minerals in total.
Delivering a 25kt facility (and moving it elsewhere when the body is depleted) imposes a high logistical cost relative to just scooping directly from multiple mining locations to fill a freighter.
The proposed smaller mass driver imposes a more reasonable logistical cost, for a 25% rate cost premium.

The large mass driver offers 20% cost savings for very large mineral-flinging operations.


I would imagine these would be available without additional tech, but I could also see putting them behind a fairly cheap Logistics research.

[alex_brunius]

Two new size options for mass drivers:

Mass Driver - Small
size and capacity: 20% of standard Mass Driver
cost: 25% of standard Mass Driver

Mass Driver - Large
size and capacity: 500% of standard Mass Driver
cost: 400% of standard Mass Driver

Reasoning:
A large majority of the OM-eligible asteroids in the early game have less than 25kt of minerals in total.
Delivering a 25kt facility (and moving it elsewhere when the body is depleted) imposes a high logistical cost relative to just scooping directly from multiple mining locations to fill a freighter.
The proposed smaller mass driver imposes a more reasonable logistical cost, for a 25% rate cost premium.

The large mass driver offers 20% cost savings for very large mineral-flinging operations.

I would imagine these would be available without additional tech, but I could also see putting them behind a fairly cheap Logistics research.

IMO just make the regular one 5kt size instead if logistical size is an issue, for more capacity you can just stack several of them right so no need to have several bigger models? I can't really see any situations where you worry about efficiency so much or where cost of mass drivers make up a meaningful portion of your total construction cost such that you would care about saving 20% on cost of them.

[Panopticon]

I agree with Alex, like, I wouldn't be mad to have more mass driver options, but I don't know that it is really solving any problems.

[Ultimoos]

There is also something like a theme issue. Mass driver is an installation and no other installation in game has size variants. That only applies to ship modules.

[skoormit]

I agree with Alex, like, I wouldn't be mad to have more mass driver options, but I don't know that it is really solving any problems.

But I explained exactly what problems it solves, even if those problems don't apply to you.

[alex_brunius]

But I explained exactly what problems it solves, even if those problems don't apply to you.

My point was that your problem can be solved equally well without need of adding any new types of mass driver installations at all.

In theory we could even change the regular mass driver to be 10% the size, 10% the cost, 10% capacity and then you can just stack as many (or as few) of them as you need to model any arbitrary capacity desired (just like you stack all other installations).

[paolot]

I agree with alex_brunius and Panopticon, as the present capacity of the mass driver is OK for me.
And when I need to move one of them (or installations in general) elsewhere, almost always I ask the civilian companies to do it (I often ask them also to deliver the first installations on a body).