Suggestions Thread for v2.4.0

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

1. To bring our templates into new versions of the database. (Probably would require some manual tweaking of designs to adjust to the new version...)

I fear you could at least get several errors for missing components out of the old template in the new database.
Let's say, in your running game you can develop a new component (anyone) because you are at the research level that allows it, but in the new database (e.g., at the beginning of a new game) that component is still not possible, because your research level is too low. So, you cannot build that class in the new game. And I think you could even block the game.

Or the component now requires new information that didn't exist in the old version (or vice versa) and that will throw errors, or has different parameters, etc. That's why I restricted it to the same version of the database.

[Randy]

I can see potential issues going across DB versions (thus the manual tweaking) - so maybe only allow import into same version so we can share designs.

I don't see the tech a s a real problem - currently, you can save a higher level tech ship as a template, and start a new game and see the required tech to research before building it...

So maybe export to something like JSON, have it version marked, and allow import in same version of DB... thus promoting sharing of designs :-)

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

I can see potential issues going across DB versions (thus the manual tweaking) - so maybe only allow import into same version so we can share designs.

I don't see the tech a s a real problem - currently, you can save a higher level tech ship as a template, and start a new game and see the required tech to research before building it...

So maybe export to something like JSON, have it version marked, and allow import in same version of DB... thus promoting sharing of designs :-)

Tech isn't the problem. The fields in the database often change from version to version, so the old version may not have the necessary stored information to successfully load a template, or a component, etc. That could cause a null value to be loaded, which might not be an issue on load but manifest a problem later. Then a bug gets reported, which can't be found because the problem was created in a different version of the code.

That isn't something that can be fixed, without some form of custom code to update all possible component configurations between versions, which would be a considerable amount of work. As that is low priority, it would simply never get done. So that's why I specified the constraint on templates to only work within the same version.

If you really want to import between different databases of the same version, then I agree some form of export / import might work. I believe you can also directly copy a table from one SQLite database to another. Either of those solutions can be done outside of Aurora by anyone with the necessary skills, although that still has the potential to add unfixable bugs.

[randakar]

On the java side you'd use something like flyway or liquibase to track the version of the database schema and implement migrations with scripts.That way, when a new version of the program is deployed the database is updated automatically to deal with things like renames.

Obviously that's something that takes work as well though - it has to be worth it to do that.
But it's not really necessary to hand craft it, there are tools for that.

[nakorkren]

What: Could the "Commander Experience" event be split into more discrete types of events?

Why: Action is rarely if ever required when an administrator or officer gains experience, but particularly early in the game when your scientists gain experience you want to rejigger your research assignments. And heaven help you if you play with political reliability turned on, as the events for gaining political reliability really clutter the event screen unless you hide ALL Commander Experience events, which isn't desirable.

[nakorkren]

What: Please split Commander Health event into Commander Health and Commander Death.

Why: I belive this has been requested before, but generally speaking you don't take action when someone gets sick, you usually only take action when they die and you need to reassign their research project (or admin command/ship/governship if you don't automate those, I guess). This way we could hide Commander Health events and still know when someone dies.

[alex_brunius]

It's feels unrealistic that you can manually promote a lowly minimum rank commander all the way up to top rank while keeping full skill bonuses. That job requires a completely different skillset.

Suggestion:
If you have "Realistic Commander Promotions" checked, each time you manually promote a leader they will lose 5% in all skills (down to a minimum of +5% bonus so they will keep a small bonus/specialization).

[JacenHan]

Give that we are only a couple weeks away from 2025, it might be time to consider updating the default start year? Unless Aurora is going to switch over into being a retro-futurism 4X.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

Give that we are only a couple weeks away from 2025, it might be time to consider updating the default start year? Unless Aurora is going to switch over into being a retro-futurism 4X.

I already did   It's 2050 in the next version.

[SinisterMinister]

I'd like to suggest that if the most populated colony of a system is conquered, then all other populations in the system will be surrendered as well. Or perhaps there could be a system capitol mechanic or something like that and only if the capitol surrenders, so too will the other populations in system.

[alex_brunius]

I already did   It's 2050 in the next version.

Looking forward for another 25 years 

[nuclearslurpee]

I already did   It's 2050 in the next version.

Looking forward for another 25 years 

Let us raise our expectations, in 250 years Robot Steve will still be developing Aurora! 

[KriegsMeister]

I already did   It's 2050 in the next version.

Looking forward for another 25 years 

Let us raise our expectations, in 250 years Robot Steve will still be developing Aurora! 

Complete 3D VR system and galaxy maps, microscopic detailing of ships and components to include the exact wavelength and diffusion of lasers or the manifold pressure of powerplants, advanced and intuitive AI that properly reacts to the player and creates unique ships without templates.

Still the only graphics are the 64x64pixel race pictures

[mike2R]

Minor UX tweak suggestion:

Description

With fleet orders, they all have the "Order Delay" and "Minimum Available" options, but only some have "Minimum Distance" or "Maximum Items". 

They appear from left to right in the order:  Minimum Distance, Order Delay, Maximum Items, Minimum Available.

Issue

Because permanent options appear to the right of contingent ones, the positioning jumps around.  Specifically Order Delay (which I use a lot) changes position based on whether Minimum Distance is available. 

I keep filling in the wrong box basically   Its on the left if using it for some orders, but for ones like Move to Location or Send Message it isn't.

Suggestion

Put the permanent option Order Delay on the left, and Minimum Available next (though should probably be contingent too).  And then the two contingent options next (I don't think the order matters since I don't believe you can ever specify both of them).

[Ghostly]

In regards to ground units, could we get a species name suffix for each GU element that wasn't trained in a population containing the player empire's main species? I wasn't even aware species mattered until stumbling onto the respective collumn in the DB then re-reading some rule posts really closely, and now that I think about it, this explains how some of my ground battles went worse than expected because the GUs involved were raised from a species with lower environment tolerances than my main one. Currently there's no way to determine a GU's species other than by checking its elements in the DB.

Also, could the OOB tab in the Ground Forces window be updated to support multi-select? Scrapping or deleting more than one formation at a time is currently way more difficult than it needs to be.