Author Topic: Suggestions Thread for v2.4.0  (Read 95954 times)

0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Panopticon

  • Gold Supporter
  • Rear Admiral
  • *****
  • P
  • Posts: 900
  • Thanked: 45 times
  • 2023 Supporter 2023 Supporter : Supporter of the forum in 2023
Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.4.0
« Reply #810 on: December 31, 2024, 10:56:04 PM »
I have at one point suggested / asked for a simple in game textbox to keep notes on. I find it a bit annoying to flip back and forth between notepad and aurora.

But that's just a window focus thing, and I am on a single monitor. So... meh.

A simple embedded text box would be pretty neat to have, a luxury for sure since you know, Notepad exists but nice.
 

Offline Coleslaw

  • I got the Versacis on, stop playin'!
  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • Posts: 62
  • Thanked: 57 times
Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.4.0
« Reply #811 on: January 01, 2025, 02:03:00 PM »
Biome specific trade goods (or bonuses to trade good production based on planet biome type.) I think if the civilian trade stuff gets fleshed out in the future it could add some interesting considerations for "profit-oriented" empires (like if you're playing as a mega corporation.)

Biome-specific trade goods might make it more profitable to to colonize specific planets and terraform them to a specific biome, rather than blanket-colonize-and-terraform into the habitable range. For example, coffee production would have a bonus on tropical planets, with an extra bonus to coffee production if the planet is a mountainous rainforest (since coffee likes to grow relatively high up.) Wine would have a bonus on a warm, planes world. Fur production would be drastically reduced on hot deserts, but greatly increased on tundra worlds.
 

Offline NuclearStudent

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • N
  • Posts: 103
  • Thanked: 11 times
Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.4.0
« Reply #812 on: January 01, 2025, 05:25:48 PM »
Biome specific trade goods (or bonuses to trade good production based on planet biome type.) I think if the civilian trade stuff gets fleshed out in the future it could add some interesting considerations for "profit-oriented" empires (like if you're playing as a mega corporation.)

Biome-specific trade goods might make it more profitable to to colonize specific planets and terraform them to a specific biome, rather than blanket-colonize-and-terraform into the habitable range. For example, coffee production would have a bonus on tropical planets, with an extra bonus to coffee production if the planet is a mountainous rainforest (since coffee likes to grow relatively high up.) Wine would have a bonus on a warm, planes world. Fur production would be drastically reduced on hot deserts, but greatly increased on tundra worlds.

On a related note, it would be nice to abstract the benefits of trade and competitive advantage by having a pop growth bonus to worlds that have goods demand satisfied. Or, if that's more computationally taxing than Steve deems necessary, to have like a pop growth bonus of 1%, up to a maximum of 20%, for every civilian ship to arrive at a planet in the last month. 

The ideal simulation would probably look more like Victoria II or Victoria III's pop demands and varied effects on goods, but that is much more demanding than can be realistically expected.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2025, 06:57:03 PM by NuclearStudent »
 

Offline SpaceMarine

  • Bug Moderators
  • Rear Admiral
  • ***
  • Posts: 936
  • Thanked: 954 times
"Detach and Keep Standing orders"
« Reply #813 on: January 02, 2025, 01:25:39 AM »
Proposal: Create a new button as a variation of the detach button, which when activated will detach the ship/ships into their own fleet but keep the standing orders of their original fleet.

Reasons for Implementation: If created this new capability would allow what is essentially a copying of standing order information across fleets, currently the system requires that every new fleet will take up to five clicks just to set up standing orders, ones which often are the same as their originally attached fleet. This change would cut down on that number of clicks significantly and allow widespread assignment of standing orders to fleets, an early and easy example of this would be the construction of your first survey ships into the shipyard fleet, with the shipyard fleet setup correctly each time you detach a newly built survey vessel it will have all the standing orders alreadyprogrammed into it.

With that example in mind its primary benefit could be the assignment of standing orders for newly built ships across your empire quickly and easily, of course a better potential system could be the creation of standing order "Profiles" which can be loaded into each fleet from the naval org window after being saved. The reason for my suggestion of the detach and keep standing orders button would be its relative similarity to existing systems atleast from the outside which in theory would make it easier to both implement and for existing players to understand.

---

Feedback welcome on this proposal, hopefully in the future it wont take an exhaustive period of time assigning standing orders.

 
The following users thanked this post: Laurence, Aloriel, NuclearStudent

Offline paolot

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • p
  • Posts: 213
  • Thanked: 46 times
Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.4.0
« Reply #814 on: January 05, 2025, 02:08:32 PM »
In the Summary tab of a population/colony, if at least one Deep Space Tracking Station is present, together with the Tracking Stength, is it possible to show also the sensitivity range (in km) of the sensors?
« Last Edit: January 05, 2025, 02:11:34 PM by paolot »
 
The following users thanked this post: Kaiser

Offline Silvarelion

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • S
  • Posts: 64
  • Thanked: 6 times
Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.4.0
« Reply #815 on: January 06, 2025, 09:08:27 AM »
Currently, you can't Genemod a species twice.  It would be nice if, after a tech increase, you could re-mod the new species with the new tech.

EX: I'm making a species with 5 degree expanded temp.  After a tech increase to 8 degree, I would like to change the 5 degree species to 8 degree.  The base species would stay the same.  Just the additional capabilities would be transferred over.

Thank you
Mistake Not My Current State Of Joshing Gentle Peevishness For The Awesome And Terrible Majesty Of The Towering Seas Of Ire That Are Themselves The Mere Milquetoast Shallows Fringing My Vast Oceans Of Wrath.
  ~The Mistake Not, Hydrogen Sonata, Iain Banks
 
The following users thanked this post: NuclearStudent, Gniwu

Offline Black

  • Gold Supporter
  • Rear Admiral
  • *****
  • B
  • Posts: 880
  • Thanked: 223 times
  • 2024 Supporter 2024 Supporter : Supporter of the forum for 2024
    2020 Supporter 2020 Supporter :
    2023 Supporter 2023 Supporter : Supporter of the forum in 2023
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter :
Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.4.0
« Reply #816 on: January 07, 2025, 08:09:07 AM »
Would it be possible to add some checkbox to ship fire controls to ignore Fleet Fire at Will command? Some of my warships have missile launcher to lauch sensor probes. And when I use the Fire at Will I have to manualy disable them each time.
 
The following users thanked this post: skoormit

Offline Ogonek

  • Able Ordinary Rate
  • O
  • Posts: 3
  • Thanked: 6 times
Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.4.0
« Reply #817 on: January 07, 2025, 02:35:26 PM »
Please consider this as a source of inspiration.
1) Limit in the creation of msp and fuel - first of all, this is needed for msp. The current implementation of control using the "start-stop" button is suitable only for manual control of the amount of msp. I constantly have situations of resource shortage due to the production of a large number of maintrance facilities for their subsequent transportation to the colony-bases of the fleet. And to be honest, I would like to set a production limit on the amount of msp, so as not to press the "start-stop" button again (I am comfortable seeing the figure of 1-2 million msp, this is enough for all needs). I see this as an input box next to the "start-stop" button where the limit for msp creation is entered. Once every 5 days, the condition is checked with the start or stop of production.
2) Transportation of msp and fuel, minerals by civilian orders - a significant reduction in microcontrol in the field of logistics. My previous company ended under pressure from pirates. The empire has grown too big and a lot of logistics routes have been laid out (one ship - one point, for example, fuel delivery to one colony is one ship, and msp delivery there is another ship. It is quite convenient). Now let's imagine that these carriers are periodically pinched by pirates here and there. Restoring lost logistics requires manual control (if there is a template, then this is done a little faster), but in general it looks like this: "Who died again? Where? What was this poor guy carrying and where? So, do you need a ship and set up a route again? But first, destroy the pirates! Destroyed the pirates. Forgot which route was lost." Considering the size of the empire and the frequency of attacks, it was necessary to devote a lot of time to this aspect of the game, making notes. In general, if you transfer this logistics to civilian companies, then the manual labor will be automated. Such transportation will have the conditions "the colony needs a resource - send from the nearest source", which corresponds to the current model of cargo transportation, and "if the value of the resource in the colony is greater than the established minimum by "1 standard cargo compartment, 1 msp warehouse, 1 standard fuel tank" (any other standard size, which depends on the carrying capacity of the civilian fleet) - the colony becomes a source of the resource." With such an implementation, I would send minerals to the capital (as soon as a surplus was formed in the colonies), and distribute finished structures, fuel, msp from the capital. There is only an obvious problem - this is that the colony can be both a source and a consumer of the resource. For example, fuel is produced in the colony and sent to the capital. In the Capital, they consume fuel and send it to other colonies. Here is a more complex condition for the operation of logistics, we need to think. The logistics problem is partially solved by simply disabling pirates, but I like to fight them, maintain garrisons and a planetary fleet not for roleplaying, but as protection from a real threat. The main reason for this proposal is to get rid of microcontrol. Destroyed a civilian ship, and screw it, only the cargo is a pity (it is possible to introduce monetary compensation to a civilian company for a destroyed ship on a flight with your cargo). For me personally, this would be a major improvement to the game, allowing me to focus on more interesting aspects of the game. And this will increase my own limit of empire manageability when I will be able to support a more colossal empire. Also, a positive side effect would be the revitalization of space with civilian ships with various cargoes (and an additional financial burden on the annual wealth for the provision of transportation services), and not just the delivery of structures, colonists and goods. Logistics is interesting, but only if you do not repeat the same thing over and over again.
3) Updating the design of civilian ships, new types - in connection with the above, other types of ships are required: tanker, msp carrier and minerals. And in order not to greatly increase the number of ships of a civilian company, it is necessary to increase the carrying capacity of the current ones. Even in my previous companies, with the increase in the extent of the empire, delivery to remote planets by civilian companies became a bottleneck with an incomprehensible throughput, it became difficult to determine how much time it would take to deliver the entire order. And if you really dream, you can swing for civilian orbital mines that will move along the asteroid belt to dig ore and sell it to me, after all, this is the task of the civilian sector to extract minerals. A cruise liner that will cruise random objects (to revive space and earn money), a debris collector will collect ship debris and, possibly, process it into minerals, naturally in safe sectors, excluding the front line.
4) Civilian fuel harvesters send fuel to the colony - in their current form they can be used as a gas station or "as a distillation of valuable fuel into useless papers", that is, selling to the private sector, and we get tax revenues. If we add the ability to send fuel (for example, resource packages for the driver to accept mass driver) or deliver them themselves to the nearest colony for a certain amount of money, this will definitely make them much more useful than they are now. In previous games, I did not include them precisely because of the unwillingness to spend a valuable resource and receive wealth in return, I think I am not alone in this.
5) Civilian mines - now they just appear on the body "suddenly". Although it is possible to make it so that in the capital/colony with a shipyard a specialized cargo ship appears and slowly starts flying towards the future mine. In the body's orbit, unloading and deployment does not happen instantly, but with a delay of, say, five days. This is a cosmetic change aimed at enlivening space.
6) Fleet training, automatic maintenance and replenishment of supplies - to be honest, I am writing here from memory. I had a problem when setting a fleet for training, it trained to the state of "a rusty trough without spare parts" without even reaching 100% training. This is a serious microcontrol problem if the fleet consists of ships with crews of different training levels. Someone has exhausted their maintenance limit, someone has overtrained. The fleet does not exit training mode upon reaching 100% coherence and does not enter maintenance itself to reset service hours. It does not replenish MSP and fuel during and after the process. A lot of actions have to be performed to train crews. I see the process as follows - the Fleet is put on exercises - Trains - If any ship reaches a critical maintenance point, the ship is put on replenishment of supplies and zeroing of work hours (the fleet continues to train) - as soon as any ship reaches 100% training, it is put on replenishment of supplies and zeroing of work hours, and no longer returns to exercises. When other ships join the fleet (for example, a fresh ship from the slipway), it also goes through this circle, regardless of the state of other ships.7) Expanding shipyards how much it will cost in resources - in order to find out how many resources will be needed to expand the shipyard, you need to go to the forum or calculate the difference after you give the task to expand by mineral consumption. You can add a table with a note in the shipyard tab about the amount of resources required to increase the capacity by 1000 tons or add a slipway. Or modify the price table in the same tab to show minerals.
7) Expanding shipyards how much it will cost in resources - in order to find out how many resources will be needed to expand the shipyard, you need to go to the forum or calculate the difference after you give the task to expand by mineral consumption. You can add a table with a note in the shipyard tab about the amount of resources required to increase the capacity by 1000 tons or add a slipway. Or modify the price table in the same tab to show minerals.
8) The research queue disappears with the death of a scientist - I really like the function of limiting the number of laboratories per scientist. It does not allow to make imbalances in research, to maximize any one direction. Usually I have 1-2 scientists for one area of research, in this regard, I set up a research queue for them from several technologies, and I try to approach this issue thoroughly. With a large number of laboratories, I did not notice that the total capacity of the labs of scientists increased, аt the same time, the total number of scientists engaged in research is growing due to the limitation on the number of laboratories. With the death of a scientist, the research queue disappears into oblivion. The current research that the scientist conducted is visible by the number of points, but the following positions are not - it is possible to restore only the current research in the queue. In this regard, I would like more automation of research on the principle of set up-forgot-research completed-set up. The closest analogue is the creation of research bureaus. There is a head of laboratories and a certain number of labs tied to him. You can set up the number of research facilities, auto-assignment and research queue. You can also set up automatic assignment of the head taking into account the parameters, as for fleet commanders. The number of such bureaus can be limited by research areas.
9) Cost of mineral research - research costs money and minerals. It seems fair to me that practical research costs not only money, but also raw materials for prototypes, models, and equipment. This increases the need for space expansion.
10) Decreased stability of colonies from fleet losses - the loss of ships of both the military and civilian fleets, in my opinion, should cause concern among the people. And increase the requirements for police strenght.
11) Recycling of the orbital miner - the performance of the orbital miner leaves much to be desired. The module weighs 5000 tons and costs 120 corundum, and produces 10 tons of each mineral per year. Considering that comets and asteroids contain no more than three types of minerals (at least a brief review showed exactly that much), the payback period for the module alone is 4 years, not counting the rest of the ship and the availability of the vein. Add to this the threat of pirates, and the distraction of attention to setting up and monitoring production, and we get a less than favorable offer.

I hope Google translate translated everything correctly ru-eng.
For me personally, in this wall of text, the main wish is the second point, my empire control limit is quite low.
In this text, the phrase "space revival" is often found. By this I mean any activity outside the colonies and main trade routes, under the control of the AI. This is directly related to pirates. For them, there are no accessible targets except for the main transportation routes in the passage systems. Colonies and ships in the orbit of the colonies are often protected, and outside them there are only my fuel collectors and support stations. The very concept of piracy suffers from this.
Thanks for the great game, which is hard to master and even harder to play)
 
The following users thanked this post: NuclearStudent, xenoscepter, skoormit, Mark Yanning, Hari

Offline Flame_Draken

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • F
  • Posts: 8
  • Thanked: 6 times
Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.4.0
« Reply #818 on: January 07, 2025, 08:39:45 PM »
I have a couple of proposals for the hull numbering system currently in game.

Currently in game if you have two class of ship that have the same hull designation but are different types of ships (say bog standard Destroyer and an ASW Destroyer) the hull numbers do not sequence.  As in if you build 1 destroyer and one asw destroyer, each one will be DD-01.  If you build a second of each one, the new hulls numbers for both will be DD-02.

On the player side, I know that we can create new hulls with new hull designations to get around the issue, but it would be nice if there was something better.

Option 1 - Leave as is and let the players create new hull designations for hull numbering purposes.
By far the easiest 'solution' as far as development is concerned as no action is needed by Steve.  This does make the player have to recreate their own designation system each time.

Option 2 - Edit the hull designations in the core game to give each hull designation a unique prefix code instead of some of them reusing the same designations.
This requires some work on finding and replacing the duplicate designations on Steve's part.  This could help remove confusion that may pop up if you want to assign an RS (Rescue Shuttle) to a carrier but instead use an RS (Replenishment Ship) or RS (Recreation Ship).  Or you send a FTH (Heavy Fighter) to pick up cargo and a FTH (Heavy Freighter) to intercept an enemy fleet.

Option 3 - Have the game able to track hull designations separate from or instead of the hull for hull numbering purposes.  This requires the most work from Steve and seems to be the hardest to implement.  The system would need to look at a hull designation (such as DD) before looking up the current count for that hull designation.  This does not eliminate any confusion that may arise from glancing at the designations without changing, however it would allow a more consistent numbering system based on the designations in use.

I would prefer a mixture of options 2 and 3 were implemented but just having option 2 by itself will go a long way for me.
 

Offline skoormit

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 995
  • Thanked: 419 times
Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.4.0
« Reply #819 on: January 10, 2025, 11:43:43 AM »
A lot of good stuff in here, but I want to respond only to the last thing:

11) Recycling of the orbital miner - the performance of the orbital miner leaves much to be desired. The module weighs 5000 tons and costs 120 corundum, and produces 10 tons of each mineral per year. Considering that comets and asteroids contain no more than three types of minerals (at least a brief review showed exactly that much), the payback period for the module alone is 4 years, not counting the rest of the ship and the availability of the vein. Add to this the threat of pirates, and the distraction of attention to setting up and monitoring production, and we get a less than favorable offer.

The orbital miner module, at its current size and cost, is the best source of mineral production in the game.
The cost is the same as a normal mine, and half the cost of an automated mine.
The module is 1/5 the size of the surface mines.
The module does not require workers, so you don't need to transport colonists and infrastructure (which you do for normal mines, and which are far larger and more expensive to build and to transport than the additional ship components needed for an orbital mining ship).
The base production is the same for all three (module, normal mine, automated mine).
Smaller bodies have much higher average mineral richness than larger bodies, which means that modules (which are restricted to the smallest bodies) are usually far more productive than normal mines on bodies with reasonable colony cost (which tend to be larger bodies).
(Also, it is not true that comets and asteroids can only have three types of minerals. In my current game, there is an asteroid with deposits of nine minerals. I assume it's possible (but very rare) to have deposits of all eleven types.)

These advantages are balanced by two mechanical disadvantages:
1) Can only be used on very small bodies, which have much smaller average deposits than larger bodies.
2) Very vulnerable to attack.

There is also, as you mention, the non-mechanical disadvantage: the player time required to deploy and monitor such ships.
Many players avoid using orbital miners altogether for this reason.

Some players (like myself) develop practices for using orbital miners that reduce the management time required.
For example, instead of spending time trying to determine the "best" place to send my next miner (which is time consuming), I follow a simple process:

First miner built goes to the closest eligible body. This is now the "live" orbital mining colony.
After that, I follow two simple doctrines:

Doctrine A--Distributing new miners
At the live colony, is it more than 20 years until depletion of all deposits of the crucial minerals?  (You decide which minerals are crucial; for me it is usually DUR,MER,CRN,GAL.)
Yes) Send this miner to the live colony.
No) Send this miner to the closest eligible body that is not being mined. This is now the live colony.

Doctrine B--Redistributing miners
Every five years, look at each orbital mining colony, starting in the home system and then going through other systems from closest to furthest from home system.
Is there more than one miner here?
Is the time to depletion (of all deposits) less than 10 years?
If yes to both, move half of the miners (rounded down) elsewhere.
Where to move them to depends on where the current live colony is.
If moving to the live colony requires backtracking towards the home system, I prefer instead to make a new colony at the closest eligible body in this system (or further down this jump point path, away from the home system).
That colony becomes a secondary live colony for redistributing other miners in this jump point branch.


Anyway, my main point is that the orbital mining module does not need to be improved. It is well balanced as it is.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2025, 08:39:37 AM by skoormit »
 
The following users thanked this post: davidb86, nuclearslurpee, Ogonek

Offline gateisgreen

  • Able Ordinary Rate
  • g
  • Posts: 3
Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.4.0
« Reply #820 on: January 12, 2025, 07:32:23 AM »
Some few simple suggestions for Ground Forces UI:

1) Ground Forces >> Order of Battle
 - save checkbox statuses (Show Elements, Sort Creation Date..) upon closing GF window, currently they reverts back to default positions

 - make entries under HQ in "Formations and Direct Attachments" (right window) be ordered same as in hierarchy tree (by battlefield positions) or by chosen sorting options (size, name, cost etc..), I may mistake, but currently it is sorted by creation date

 - could be a bug, but not sure: sometimes, when inspecting "Formation Unit List" for selected celestial body (i.e. Earth) computer groups units from different formations into single "chunk"; for example, I have three tank formations with 1 HQ unit in them (3 total HQs) and inspections shows "HQ_name=3" instead of "HQ_name=1, HQ_name=1, HQ_name=1

 - add button "Assign Commander" to selected formation, currently you have to go to Leaders tab and do work from there (often forgetting which formation you are working with)

 - for "beautifulization" reasons maybe add "% weight" percentage column (along with "size, cost, GSP etc..) to quickly evaluate exposure for enemy fire of certain unit types

2) Ground Forces >> Formation Templates
 - add sorting options for researched unit models in the left panel other than "type"; IMHO, "name" would be better because user could separate supports, HQs, arties etc.. simply by using prefixes

- add button "Delete Model" for models you won't be using 100% sure - (like units with early game low racial armour/weapon modifiers); also this will make more space in "Unit Series"

- let "unit details" window in the bottom-left show information based on selection, which includes models from the bottom-right panel; so, inspecting one's current army setup will be easier
 

Offline Megadude

  • Able Ordinary Rate
  • M
  • Posts: 1
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.4.0
« Reply #821 on: January 12, 2025, 12:00:24 PM »
I am trying to create a scenario where advanced ruins are found on Mars, however using SM we can only control how large a ruin is and have to keep cycling until we get a research site and even then, the site is random.

Can the Create Ruin selection screen be expanded to include the size, tech level, research site type, and research site bonus percentage and anything else related?
 
The following users thanked this post: BAGrimm

Offline NuclearStudent

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • N
  • Posts: 103
  • Thanked: 11 times
Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.4.0
« Reply #822 on: January 12, 2025, 12:25:44 PM »
Multistage missile research costs are rather high for reduced-pace research games. It's quite punitive to have to pay the research cost of the base stages in addition to the research for the additional stages. I suggest that multistage missiles get a research discount cost - eg. for a size 8 missiles with size 6 of secondary stages, we only pay the research cost of a size 2 missile.

Multistage missiles are fun and it's a bit silly to discourage them.
 

Online Andrew

  • Registered
  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 754
  • Thanked: 153 times
Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.4.0
« Reply #823 on: January 12, 2025, 03:05:30 PM »
So If I chain 4 size 2 missiles together that should be cheaper than a size 8 missile to research?
 

Offline alex_brunius

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1320
  • Thanked: 209 times
Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.4.0
« Reply #824 on: January 12, 2025, 05:56:44 PM »
So If I chain 4 size 2 missiles together that should be cheaper than a size 8 missile to research?
I think that the cost would be 0 because you already paid the full RP cost of the size 2 missile design before designing the "empty" multi stage to chain them together.

The suggestion put forward as I understood it is that you only need to pay RP for the engine/fuel/other new components you add to the multistage. Not pay more RP again coming from the missiles you already researched before.
 
The following users thanked this post: NuclearStudent