Suggestions Thread for v2.4.0

[Froggiest1982]

I would lik to see discoverable planetary atmosphere so that colonization levels for colonizeable bodies appears only after survey.

In theory you get a general value XX.XX (Assuming temperature, atmo, and water value is for instance 0), and after survey you get the actual data which will result in the proper and correct details.

Function could be flagged at start. Something like: advanced exploration on or off.

[nuclearslurpee]

I would lik to see discoverable planetary atmosphere so that colonization levels for colonizeable bodies appears only after survey.

In theory you get a general value XX.XX (Assuming temperature, atmo, and water value is for instance 0), and after survey you get the actual data which will result in the proper and correct details.

Function could be flagged at start. Something like: advanced exploration on or off.

This would be interesting as an optional flag, among other reasons it would make the appearance of certain spoiler races more surprising. 

[Mark Yanning]

I agree, this is much more realistic and it makes exploration more interesting. Nice idea

[Andrew]

I think it is very unrealistic but have no objections to options.
At the moment we can do spectographic analysis of the atmospheres of planets in other solar systems. With better space based telescopes and computers that will be easy to do, so any survey ship appearing in a system will be able to determine the atmosphere of all planets quickly without visiting them.
To be realistic we should know that atmosphere and size of planets in a system before visiting it. I see no reason or method to implement such a thing, however the current model of seeing the planet on arrival works.
There is an arguement that we should know if an alien homeworld is in a system on arrival as the emissions and effects on the planet are going to be detectable at interstellar ranges and the homeworld has probably been a large ondustrialised population for centuries. Of course I don't know that a xeno homelworld could be detected at interstellar ranges as we have not found one yet

[Demetrious]

I think it is very unrealistic but have no objections to options.
At the moment we can do spectographic analysis of the atmospheres of planets in other solar systems. With better space based telescopes and computers that will be easy to do, so any survey ship appearing in a system will be able to determine the atmosphere of all planets quickly without visiting them.

This. However, there are other options; the tolerances of possible NPR races could be widened a bit, with a diminishing probability as you approach the far ends of the scale, so while it's unlikely for advanced civilizations to arise on frozen worlds with oceans hidden beneath the ice, it's not impossible. Europa, ho! Similarly, ~certain spoilers~ of races who once existed long ago may well be orbiting planets who's conditions have changed over the millennia due to natural processes (ice ages on Earth for instance.)

Incidentally, the "emergence" behavior Steve's added for "advanced precursors" could be utilized for ice worlds like that (planets in appropriate temp ranges with a wide hydro extent and terrain type of "ice fields" or whatnot.) Entire pre-industrial civilizations hidden beneath the ice until you actually survey the planet. Or perhaps when their STO's light up your survey ship.

EDIT: If I recall correctly very large spoiler ruins are more likely on more habitable worlds (greater reward, greater risk, naturally) but having a lower chance of very large ruins on otherwise unattractive terraforming targets/w lots of minerals would also be interesting as the in-situ infrastructure would greatly lessen the cost of exploitation. On the other hand, since ruins can't be damaged by orbital bombardment there's no attendant incentive to clear out the enemies "the hard way" to secure the goodies.

[Froggiest1982]

I think it is very unrealistic but have no objections to options.
At the moment we can do spectographic analysis of the atmospheres of planets in other solar systems. With better space based telescopes and computers that will be easy to do, so any survey ship appearing in a system will be able to determine the atmosphere of all planets quickly without visiting them.
To be realistic we should know that atmosphere and size of planets in a system before visiting it. I see no reason or method to implement such a thing, however the current model of seeing the planet on arrival works.
There is an arguement that we should know if an alien homeworld is in a system on arrival as the emissions and effects on the planet are going to be detectable at interstellar ranges and the homeworld has probably been a large ondustrialised population for centuries. Of course I don't know that a xeno homelworld could be detected at interstellar ranges as we have not found one yet

Yes we can, however when we send probes we find different things and this is in our solar system, what is going to happen when we will be able to probe Alpha Centauri?

Not bringing water to my well, but again, just to remain in our solar system we still not entirely sure of several compositions in relation to life or water on Mars, and only now by having a rover on it and more advanced probes we are understanding the effective geology of the planet.

EDIT: Eventually , what I am seeking is not a realistic model but perhaps one where the gameplay would allow for more interesting and heroic exploration on a televised sci fi model instead of a NASA hard data driven one. Sorry if I haven't clarified that sooner

[Andrew]

Indeed we do not know about the details of Mars 6 billion years ago, that is somewhat different from knowing its atmospheric composition and Ice caps, amount of underground water is reasonably well known as well, If there has ever been liquid water or if occassional liquid water occures now we do not know I agree. However we do not have FTL sensors and also that is not what is being discussed. Correction we would not know about historical liquid water from telescopic observation or course the rovers have proved that billions of years ago there was .
We know the atmosphere and can have a decent guess about the amount of water on Exoplanets let alone planets in our solar system. We cannot measure the possible single celled life or such but frankly that does not matter at all and is not measured in Aurora at all, the native biosphere unless it has railguns does not effect colonisation. A change making the biosphere and how it interacts with other bisopheres might be interesting and would need planatery investigation to determine but that is not an issue here at all.
Although anything except microbes we could do a decent job of analysing at in system ranges and can even have a stab at interstellar detection, for instance we have a decent chance of detecting the signature of Chlorophyl in spectogrophy.
I think you are wrong , this does not matter. I am perfectly happy with adding an option called ;Spectographic incompetence or something to represent bad surveyors I just won't use it and think its silly

[Demetrious]

EDIT: Eventually , what I am seeking is not a realistic model but perhaps one where the gameplay would allow for more interesting and heroic exploration on a televised sci fi model instead of a NASA hard data driven one. Sorry if I haven't clarified that sooner

"I'd like more surprises" isn't a bad idea and given Steve's work with spoilers (first Raiders, then advanced Precursors) I don't think he'd disagree. There's more than one way to skin this cat...

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

I would lik to see discoverable planetary atmosphere so that colonization levels for colonizeable bodies appears only after survey.

In theory you get a general value XX.XX (Assuming temperature, atmo, and water value is for instance 0), and after survey you get the actual data which will result in the proper and correct details.

Function could be flagged at start. Something like: advanced exploration on or off.

I think the problem will be similar to that of checking every thermal contact. While this might be interesting the first few times, the tenth time, or the hundredth time might get a little tedious.

Right now, there are certain planet types (a combination of size, atmosphere and temp) that are more likely to have have spoilers that fire first and ask questions later. Therefore, you either approach them carefully, or send a probe, or maybe a scout shuttle. If you remove atmosphere information (for example), all that does is expand the number of planets where you have to be careful. So now, you either have the tedium of launching a lot more probes, or shuttles, or you risk losing an expensive survey ship because you can't be bothered with all the extra micromanagement. So then, rather than take that risk, you probably start using a swarm of less expensive survey ships to avoid too much of a loss in a single incident and interesting decisions are removed, because the mechanics are now sending you down an particular path.

Also, we can detect atmosphere right now at light years of distance, so it doesn't seem realistic to eliminate that information, when you can detect any kilometre-sized rock within a light year.

In v2.6, there are going to be more inhabited NPR bodies - due to the multi-system setup - so exploration will be more eventful anyway. I am certainly discovering that right now in my test campaign. I'll post an AAR when I get time.

[Ghostly]

I've recently ran into several situations where my beam fighters could not chase down an enemy ship because it was always one second ahead of them. I suspected it was due to the enemy ship having a higher Reaction rating than my No Officer fighters, and it has proven to be correct (screenshots attached, before and after giving the NPR ship's commander a 50% Reaction bonus in the DB), so we have an Achilles and the tortoise type of situation here.

Problem: it's near-impossible to produce enough officers to crew every fighter if you're using them heavily, let alone enough officers with a good Reaction bonus, nor would that be desirable, as beam fighters are meant to be disposable. This also means the Fighter Combat bonus is difficult to take advantage of.

Proposed solution: add an option to designate a fighter class as a Squadron Leader. This could be done either through a checkbox in the Class Design window available to fighters only, or through a fighter-sized (~10t) equivalent of the Flag Bridge command module (named something like Squadron Leader Equipment). A Squadron Leader fighter would transfer half of its commander's Reaction and Fighter Combat boni to the fighters in its fleet or sub-fleet. Such a fighter probably shouldn't increase the required rank of its commander, as the Squadron Leader rank is already equivalent to the ranks of Lieutenant Commander or Major.

While a Squadron Leader could buff its entire fleet same way Flag Bridge does, I see much more merit in it functioning similarly to Ground Commander boni, affecting its sub-fleet only with full efficiency up to a certain number of fighters (this could be a preset number, like 10 fighters in a squadron, a separate Squadron Size tech, or a parameter on a player-designed command module) with reduced effectiveness past that. This would incentivize the player to split his fighters into actual squadrons within each carrier rather than launching them in one big blob, which is something that's only currently beneficial for organizational purposes.

Alternatively (or perhaps, additionally) such functionality could be provided from the carrier, with the Reaction and Fighter Combat boni either added to the Primary Flight Control module (though I'm not sure how it would play with auto-assignments, as currently every additional Command & Control module affects a single bonus type) or onto new, separate modules. This would also be a good addition because currently Primary Flight Control is near-useless for beam fighters, affecting their refuel and resupply speed only, which is already measured in minutes if not seconds for such small vessels.

[GenStone]

First time posting!
Been here a few years on and off, pretty much always in the early-game. My friends and I play on 10% global research rate and it feels pretty good to us, or maybe we're all insane.
This means I have a lot of (bad, incompetent) experience with the early game techs you'd normally blitz past in all of your horrifyingly fast 100% global research rate runs. Having experienced a couple growing pains as a result of this, I have a few suggestions.

Missile Designer
Its a surprise tool that will help us later.

#1. Target Engine Size Multiplier
The current missile designer goes from 0.00-2.99. Then it changes to 3.0-3.1 all the way to 10, then changes again in increments of 0.5. In terms of UI, this is normally a good thing since you don't have to scroll through literally hundreds of options to get to higher numbers.
In the early-game "I need every single msp of available space to go into my engine" terms, everything past 2.99msp in engines is a numbers balancing nightmare since you're locked into 0.1 increments, then 0.5 increments.
Since Jump Engines got a face lift with target tons multipliers, I was hoping we could get something similar for missiles so people like me who eat pain for breakfast can delicately dump every single remaining MSP of the 7.335 tons of available space for this cluster missile submunition into the engines to maximize my early-game, abysmal chance to hit.
I definitely am not coping about having to drop from 32,000km/s to 24,000km/s and being unable to use the remaining 0.065msp for the engines. Not at all. Not one bit. No sir. I'd never.

#2. Second-Stage Placeholders
I happen to be a big fan of 2-stage missiles, from mines to 2-stage cruise missiles or cluster missiles. However, I also apparently suck at math and can't ever get my calculations right. Skill issue.
Part of the problem is that I have to design the second stage of the missile first, then design the platform that launches that second stage. So I have to make a missile, multiply its space taken by my intended submunition count, then use whatever space is left in the missile launcher to create the first stage - which I can only start doing after I've designed and then researched the second stage.
To make designing multi-stage missiles a little easier, I propose adding an option to the dropdown menu for a blank/placeholder submunition which would allow you to set a dummy missile size. In addition to the number of missiles, this would allow someone to conceive of their desired 2-stage missile from the first stage and easily identify how much space they have to work for the entire missile and importantly the second stage(s.)
Alternatively or additionally you could decouple the second stage from the design of the first stage missile. Its a little strange that my scientists have to research how to install the new missile into the exact same 4x cluster missile, but that would likely invoke some god of technical debt to come smite you.
This one is pretty much just my apparent inability to do math coupled with not realizing that certain active sensors values don't actually do anything and remove themselves, thus saving me space by accident.

#3. Last and definitely least.
You should probably load the separation range value in the "Load Previous" dropdown. I am routinely hit with dread that I accidentally forgot to change the separation range on a missile while reviewing it for upgrades, before remembering that it just defaults to 150k.

Magazines and how to read them
I don't know if I'm having another skill issue, if its a rounding or naming error, or if the number is based on something else entirely, but I'm consistently running into a calculation error with magazine capacity. My capacity 483 magazine should, according to my math, hold 12 size-40 missiles in it. In reality, or at least in my class designer ordnance&fighters tab, it holds 15. According to the class designer interface, my editor-named capacity 483 magazine has a magazine capacity of 603. And my 504 has a capacity of 654.
While I'm here, I find it a little strange that the magazine capacity of a ship isn't listed in the class designer's Ordnance&Fighters tab. Come to think of it, neither is hangar capacity? I wouldn't be surprised if this is another one of those historical pc settings skill issues, however.

Technology and History.
Can we get some easy access (or someone otherwise direct me to the existing easy access) historical technology records for our space empires? I spend an unnecessary amount of time (poorly and incompetently) documenting the research dates and prototypes of new technological innovations so I could, in theory, write up some big lore page in the distant future involving historical ships and when their specific components were designed and researched.
However, I find myself unable to remember to actually record the date when I make prototypes for new components and usually forget to record when the technology has actually been researched to completion as well. Events only goes so far back. This deprives me of (questionably) valuable information needed to write some obnoxious, low-quality lore I'm never going to use for anything meaningful, lol.
Maybe it could be put in the view technology tab? Maybe something similar for the base technologies as well? (e.g Base Jump Drive Efficiency 6)

I almost forgot!
Jump Drive Squadron Size 1-2
Feel free to ignore this one entirely, but my lizard brain parts keeps insisting that I build a jump-command ship and then make jumpless squaddies to "maximize" efficiency. I've thankfully ignored that urge in my latest game, but knowing that jump engines can move up to 3 ships by default and not exploiting that is causing me pain.
The way I see it, I'm already losing out by not creating jump drive-less variants to exploit the extra 2 free ships of transportation. May as well get like a 1% size efficiency bonus for having less than 3 squadron size, or even just a cost reduction. I'll even take pure vanity and loss of squadron function, lol.

Remove Prototype Button
Okay okay last thing, inelegantly. Can we get an easy remove prototype button? I've found myself creating a ton of quick on-the-spot "test" prototypes so I can block out a ship faster, but having a large wall of "test Beam Fire Control R48" or "test Beam Fire Control R128" spam covering up my completed research and prototypes components tabs gets a little annoying. Especially with future-prototypes that usually bug out and can't be researched when the prerequisite technology is actually unlocked. I can just click into the completed research tab and delete the techs, which works on game restart, but having a one-click solution in the class designer would also be nice.

Missile designer cope, check.
Magazine capacity cope, check.
my inability to remember-to-check-the-date-and-copy-some-numbers-into-a-notepad cope, check.
I-can't-be-bothered-to-make-optimized-jump-squadron-fleets-and-want-single-ship-jump-drives cope, check.
prototype-remove-button-plz cope, check.
I think that covers everything I can think of. Great game by the way.
I feel like I'm in school and got told to "highlight everything that's important" and ended up underlining everything. I'm going to press post before I find another hour's worth of things to type or edit in here.

[Andrew]

Magazines and how to read them
I don't know if I'm having another skill issue, if its a rounding or naming error, or if the number is based on something else entirely, but I'm consistently running into a calculation error with magazine capacity. My capacity 483 magazine should, according to my math, hold 12 size-40 missiles in it. In reality, or at least in my class designer ordnance&fighters tab, it holds 15. According to the class designer interface, my editor-named capacity 483 magazine has a magazine capacity of 603. And my 504 has a capacity of 654.

I have never had a problem with magazine capacities, however I can think of one thing which may be confusing you. for the ship with a size 483 magazine so you also have 3 size 40 missile launchers? as the magazine capacity includes 1 missile in each launcher plus those in storage

[GenStone]

Magazines and how to read them
I don't know if I'm having another skill issue, if its a rounding or naming error, or if the number is based on something else entirely, but I'm consistently running into a calculation error with magazine capacity. My capacity 483 magazine should, according to my math, hold 12 size-40 missiles in it. In reality, or at least in my class designer ordnance&fighters tab, it holds 15. According to the class designer interface, my editor-named capacity 483 magazine has a magazine capacity of 603. And my 504 has a capacity of 654.

I have never had a problem with magazine capacities, however I can think of one thing which may be confusing you. for the ship with a size 483 magazine so you also have 3 size 40 missile launchers? as the magazine capacity includes 1 missile in each launcher plus those in storage

You know what, that would do it. Still not used to games making sense. Also explains why the magazine was always conveniently a load's set higher and not skewed. Since I only have 2 magazines so far in this current run and since the Ordnance&Fighters tab doesn't list the capacity, (as well as an on-going intermittent skill issue regarding remembering where it lists the ship's capacity in the designer,) I wanted to bring it up just in case. Good to know I was right and it is a skill issue.

[nuclearslurpee]

I almost forgot!
Jump Drive Squadron Size 1-2
Feel free to ignore this one entirely, but my lizard brain parts keeps insisting that I build a jump-command ship and then make jumpless squaddies to "maximize" efficiency. I've thankfully ignored that urge in my latest game, but knowing that jump engines can move up to 3 ships by default and not exploiting that is causing me pain.
The way I see it, I'm already losing out by not creating jump drive-less variants to exploit the extra 2 free ships of transportation. May as well get like a 1% size efficiency bonus for having less than 3 squadron size, or even just a cost reduction. I'll even take pure vanity and loss of squadron function, lol.

With the recent changes to jump drive sizing, this would be a nice addition. Have Jump Squadron Size 3 (or is it 4 now?) also unlock the lower numbers with a corresponding cost reduction. Since the squadron size factor is now only a cost multiplier (not a size multiplier also), this should be pretty simple to do and would make settings where, e.g., each individual ship is hyper-capable a bit easier to do (although the recent changes already made this much easier already).

[GenStone]

While I desperately attempt to find labs to put into turrets to build orbital and station defenses I've been laying active minefields all throughout my colonial territories. Early mines were pretty bad and later mines sacrificed systems that were probably important, but my latest mines have finally proven to me that missiles/mines could be a little bit better.

I've attempted to attach the screenshot of my latest mine vs fleet engagement but I can't preview it and I have no idea how to reference it here so we'll see if it works.
I have size 30 4x cluster mines I've been spamming out while while trying to research turrets to build STO defenses and orbital defense platforms to protect fuel stations with.
There are a couple problems at work

#1. Static single-target selection in a fleet setting.
When a fleet of multiple identically-sized targets of the same class enters range, every mine will fire at the top-most target, overkilling then self-destructing because even with retarget capability, they won't seek out new targets. Assuming the attached image posts, yes it is a 48,000 ton ship with 2x800 tons of escorts, but in a previous incident against 2 of the exact same ship I had the exact same problem where the mines targeted the very first ship exclusively.
#2. Retarget Capability only applies to the initial target.
Lets say that, oh I don't know, 160 submunition missiles with 9 warhead damage absolutely annihilate a 48,000 ton ship but it still has 2x1000 ton of escorts. Since I can't randomize the second-stage-separation range, and since I can't randomize a 1kkms speed difference to prevent every single missile from hitting at the same time, I can't really test or take advantage of retarget capability to kill multiple ships in a fleet.
Designing 5 separate mines to deploy at 5 separate ranges to "hopefully" test this is out of my 10% global research rate reach and would require me to set the production of 5 separate mines continuously just to sustain it.
I also tried going into the active salvos tab to see if I could retarget from there, but it only listed the first stage of the mines. Doesn't appear to be a feature anyways so oh well.
Having played Masters Of Orion 2 recently and knowing that Dauntless Guidance System is a thing, I was hoping retarget capability would act like that and not just a missed second-chance system. I want dauntless guidance system in aurora, lmao.

I can understand having to replace an entire minefield for every fleet and how that could be annoying with trickle-fed 1000 ton starships eating huge mine volleys, but not being able to destroy a fleet with an adequately or over-sized minefield because of factors outside of my control is a little disappointing.

Maybe if I could deploy the mines in an area of an orbit instead of always in the exact same spot? I've also had similar issues trying to create and utilize missile geosurvey probes, since I can't target a planet without a ground contact.
Say I want to survey a habitable world I've found but don't trust it to not have STOs or a garrison fleet, I want to fire a probe at it. Without a ground contact, I have no real means to target the planet to fire a missile. Since I can't target the planet, I have to use launch ready ordnance - which just puts the ship in orbit again and only deploys the "launch" stage of the probe and not the active buoy. Is there a way to launch these missile-based probes at planets or am I just out of luck?

I started out with survey ships equipped with radar buoys and mines, and have been working to transition to a missile fleet garrison over my colonial territories. I'd use guns but my 10% global research rate has demanded I pick a weapon system and stick to it until its capable of killing things, then make another. At least until I have more labs to allocate.
Since the raids started before they were ready, I've been relying on the mines for defenses. Instead I get to watch oversized mines kill single targets while being forced to spend instant build points on new missile ships equipped with more mines to prevent the loss of the starbases or colonies, which do not have the infrastructure to maintain an orbital military or supply it with ammo.
10% global research rate games are fun lol. It would help if I built up my ordnance production but I neglected to, so even with the ships I have I can't garrison due to a lack of ammo to even supply them with. I knew building the fuel collection starbases this "early" was a mistake lol.