Suggestions Thread for v2.4.0

[Viridia]

Moved over as I realise I posted it in the wrong thread -

Super excited by all the updates coming in 2.6 Steve, but is there any prospect of the old Advanced techs coming back at all, even as an option that could be toggled on or off in the settings when creating a game? I recently reread the old VB6 Trans-Newtonian campaign, and actually unearthed advanced lasers on a 2.0.1 game I'm still running atm, and it feels like something that would make a nice reward for players working through Precursors or the new Advanced Precursors, or even the Invaders.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

Moved over as I realise I posted it in the wrong thread -

Super excited by all the updates coming in 2.6 Steve, but is there any prospect of the old Advanced techs coming back at all, even as an option that could be toggled on or off in the settings when creating a game? I recently reread the old VB6 Trans-Newtonian campaign, and actually unearthed advanced lasers on a 2.0.1 game I'm still running atm, and it feels like something that would make a nice reward for players working through Precursors or the new Advanced Precursors, or even the Invaders.

Yes, no objection to adding them (and other techs). It's just a case of when it get high on the priority list.

[Kaiser]

Steve, do you remember my suggestion to add ships, fighters, ground units etc. portraits in various game's windows (class design, naval org. etc.)? Is it in the list? Will you add something in 2.6.0?

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

Steve, do you remember my suggestion to add ships, fighters, ground units etc. portraits in various game's windows (class design, naval org. etc.)? Is it in the list? Will you add something in 2.6.0?

I'm in two minds on this one. I can see the benefits of adding the graphics for those who want them. However, unless I do a huge amount of work creating a lot of graphics, the portraits would be blank for most people, or they would all be the race ship picture for example. Also, adding portraits means creating window space for them, which in turn means sacrificing something else.

Or I make them optional, so the window rearranges if you choose to use them, which is a lot of work.

Overall, its a lot of work to do it right. So it might happen, but only if I spend the time to create a lot more ship portraits, probably using AI, and I don't have that amount of time right now while travelling and working full time.

[Kaiser]

My original idea was to let the player choose the image he wants, let's say I create a battleship class X and I choose the reference image I want, I create a destroyer and I choose another one, etc. etc.
Then if in the future you want add tons of predefinite images you can do of course, but the idea was to just create the space for it.
Plus, I'm pretty sure the community will create a lot once we have the possibility to use them.
If you need to sacrifice something more useful, then leave it as it is.

[Garfunkel]

Instead of having the picture show everywhere, add a button for it in the class window, or an extra tab. That way there is no need to rearrange the existing UI.

[Ghostly]

Why not just add the class-based (and/or hull-based) picture functionality now (hidden unless toggled by a button, as suggested above) while adding the actual extra pictures at a later date, perhaps by allowing community submissions as is the case with naming themes? Less work for you that way, and that'd also make it possible to integrate the picture system with the class/hull-based ship icons on the galaxy map that are already in 2.6.0 and release both together. I'm sure the community will deliver

[David_H_Roarings]

On the ground units Order of battle tab, can the hierarchy be: System>SystemBody>Population, Instead of what it is now: System>Population? It would make dragging units from one population to another a lot easier when you have a lot of colones in the same system thanks

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

On the ground units Order of battle tab, can the hierarchy be: System>SystemBody>Population, Instead of what it is now: System>Population? It would make dragging units from one population to another a lot easier when you have a lot of colones in the same system thanks

There is generally only one population per system body, so it would just add an extra layer that would be almost always redundant.

[David_H_Roarings]

There is generally only one population per system body, so it would just add an extra layer that would be almost always redundant.

when you use genetic modification you end up with more then one on a system body and if you already have a bunch of colonies in a system before using genetic modification the new 'Race's' Colonies end up being so far down the line that it makes dragging a ground unit to the new race's colony impossible. maybe having them sort by name instead of creation order would be better?

[nuclearslurpee]

There is generally only one population per system body, so it would just add an extra layer that would be almost always redundant.

when you use genetic modification you end up with more then one on a system body and if you already have a bunch of colonies in a system before using genetic modification the new 'Race's' Colonies end up being so far down the line that it makes dragging a ground unit to the new race's colony impossible. maybe having them sort by name instead of creation order would be better?

We already have a system in the Economics window (image below, cropped and edited for size reasons) for displaying this information without an extra layer:



I would suggest:

• Modify this scheme for the ground forces window to list each population preceded by the system body name (unless both are the same, of course)
• Follow David's suggestion to sort by system body (perhaps optionally, as this could be toggled as it is in the Economics window).

Under these conditions, the ground forces display might look like:

Code: [Select]

[-] Sol
 |  [-] Earth
 |   |  [+] I. Corps
 |   |  [+] III. Corps
 |   |  [+] VI. Corps
 |  etc.
 |  [-] Luna - Genetic Research Base
 |   |  [+] 192nd Special Guard Brigade
 |  [-] Luna - Tranquility Base
 |   |  [+] Lunar Brigade
 |  [-] Mars - Cydonia
 |   |  [+] II. Corps
 |   |  [+] Martian Brigade
 |  [-] Mercury - Erebor
 |   |  [+] Inner System Brigade
etc.

It looks a little odd at first but would solve the issue without extra layers of information pretty neatly, and it could optionally be toggled if there's any space left in the ground forces UI to add yet another check box.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

There is generally only one population per system body, so it would just add an extra layer that would be almost always redundant.

when you use genetic modification you end up with more then one on a system body and if you already have a bunch of colonies in a system before using genetic modification the new 'Race's' Colonies end up being so far down the line that it makes dragging a ground unit to the new race's colony impossible. maybe having them sort by name instead of creation order would be better?

I've changed to sort by population name within each system.

[Louella]

A less fiddly UI for managing STO targeting would be nice to have in future.

Being able to select multiple STO units to change their targeting instructions, for example. This alone would be so useful.

[skoormit]

On the Create New Race window there is a checkbox for "Conventional Empire."

Please consider relabeling that to "Non-TN Empire" or similar.

New players are often unaware of the specific meaning of "Conventional" in Aurora, and they tick this box because they believe, naturally enough, that a "conventional" empire is a good choice for a first game.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

On the Create New Race window there is a checkbox for "Conventional Empire."

Please consider relabeling that to "Non-TN Empire" or similar.

New players are often unaware of the specific meaning of "Conventional" in Aurora, and they tick this box because they believe, naturally enough, that a "conventional" empire is a good choice for a first game.

Changed as suggested.