Suggestions Thread for v2.4.0

[icekiss]

Commanders Window:
Within each Rank, sort all entries by name.

When you see the name of an officer in an event and want to look them up, or you want to relieve an officer from duty, and then you have to scan through hundreds of entries because they aren't sorted... That is just needlessly painful.

They are sorted in order of seniority. I could add an alphabetical sort option though.

Ah, good to know there actually is a sort order right now!
But yes, the option to sort them alphabetically would be so much appreciated! 

[icekiss]

A new post for a new suggestion. 

I like advancing time manually and reading the events, instead of just forwarding to the next decision.

However, of course there is stuff that just doesn't interest me. For example I want to know which new scientists I get, but I don't care about ground force officers. And so it's a god send that I can hide certain event types ("New Ground Force Officer").
Now obviously, if I don't care about new ground force officers, I don't care about their skill improvements either. But that is all one event type: "Commander Experience" 
This is obviously just an example. Sure, having "SO Experience", "A Experience", "NO Experience" and "GFO Experience" event types would help, but there will always be even more specialized things I would prefer to hide.

Suggestion: In the event window, have a button "Hide Pattern" which opens a new window with a list of strings. Each non-empty string is interpreted as a regexp. If it matches part of the event text, the event is hidden.

Now whenever I want to hide certain events, I can just add a pattern for it.
In my example: The pattern "(Ground Combat.*|Logistics|Survey) bonus of" would hide the types of experience increases I am not interested in (easily expanded with more skill names).
Another example: I am not interested in seeing retirements and health problems of unassigned officers. Pattern: "(retired from service|killed in an accident|medical problem).*: Unassigned$"
Anybody could use that list of patterns to filter their events however they wanted, it would be extremely flexible.
The already existing "Show All Events" checkbox can be used to see the events anyway, if you suspect something got hidden you actually wanted to see.

Especially once you filter the shown events strongly, lots of events in the event window are just "03 May 2030 20:00:00                     Last Time increment 432000 seconds (05:00:00)", followed by the next timestamp and the next. I am sure there is some use for that which I don't appreciate (e.g. knowing when you used which time step size). But can you give us at least a check box option "hide empty steps"? It would make the event window so much more compact! 

That is all that I got. Thank you for a great game! 

PS: One problem my suggestion "Hide Pattern" would newly introduce, is that when you tick "Show All Events", it is unclear whether an event was hidden due to its event type or due to a pattern. If you want to fix that, make the background of all events normally hidden due to the event type a different color. That would make the two cases easily distinguishable.

[skoormit]

In the missile design window, when you load an existing design, it does not load the separation range.
It sure would be nice if it did.

[Ush213]

New Module type Drone Pilot.

Drone pilot would replace the need for an officer. With the main use case being for fighters up to FAC level.
Seen as a late game module when officers are scare and resources are plenty. Or for RP reasons.

Drone module would be expensive possibly adding double the cost to a fighter for example but would have the following bonuses/drawbacks.
Drones would remove the need for Crew upkeep so save components and with no crew would not be able to repair so MSP could also be removed from the craft.

The draw back being no chance of repair and making Drones a single use or have a timelimit depending on when they break. Further drone tech could improve realibily.

If you wanted to take it a step further and use drone as potential offcier replacements on larger ships or as potential Governors this could also lead to AI civil war events a random trigger event that turns all Drone controlled units into an hostile NPR. 

[GenStone]

In the missile design window, when you load an existing design, it does not load the separation range.
It sure would be nice if it did.

Every time I design mines or cluster missiles I'm briefly flashed with visions of terror as I fool myself into believing I accidentally left the separation range at the default value for the 20th time in a row, despite KNOWING it doesn't load that value when you look at the missile.

[lumporr]

Either an "Organization As Text" or "Colony Ground Forces As Text" button would go a long way in making it easier to assemble descriptions of complex ground force hierarchies quickly.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

In the missile design window, when you load an existing design, it does not load the separation range.
It sure would be nice if it did.

Added for v2.6.

[icekiss]

Since this apparently working as intended, I have come here from the Bugs thread:

When using the order "Tractor Any Ship in Fleet", only one ship gets tractored, even if multiple ships have the ability to do so.
Right now, with 2 ships in the tug fleet, I can easily work around that by giving the order twice (now that I noticed that it works that way).
But once I have 8 ships in the fleet, I will have to to do it 8 times. If I miscount, ships will fly empty. And I can't use a movement template for it unless the amount of ships in the fleet is the same.

I expected the singular to apply per ship, since indeed any ship can only tractor one other ship. Just like all other commands (from Movement and Refuel onwards) apply to each ship of the fleet.
If there is need to be able to limit how many ships get tractored, without just specifically selecting them, add a "Maximum Ships" field like the "Maximum Items" in "Load Installation".

[lumporr]

But once I have 8 ships in the fleet, I will have to to do it 8 times. If I miscount, ships will fly empty.

First, enter an order to Track Any Ship in Fleet.

Then, in the text field next to the "Repeat Orders" button under the list of orders, input the number of ships you want tractored (minus one, to exclude the first order). Click "Repeat Orders".

Though, as someone who correctly identifies the All Tugs Only Tugs Doctrine as superior, the micro around tug usage is a little finicky, and could do with some work - indeed, a "Tug Maximum Ships (Any)" button would cut down on clicks by a fair margin.

[icekiss]

But once I have 8 ships in the fleet, I will have to to do it 8 times. If I miscount, ships will fly empty.

First, enter an order to Track Any Ship in Fleet.

Then, in the text field next to the "Repeat Orders" button under the list of orders, input the number of ships you want tractored (minus one, to exclude the first order). Click "Repeat Orders".

Though, as someone who correctly identifies the All Tugs Only Tugs Doctrine as superior, the micro around tug usage is a little finicky, and could do with some work - indeed, a "Tug Maximum Ships (Any)" button would cut down on clicks by a fair margin.

I know how the "Repeat Orders" button works. That is essential to get anything done. 
However, that repeats _all_ orders. As far as I know there is no way to repeat just _one_ order. And I can clearly see cases where tractoring won't be the first command I give. 

I agree with you - tugging ships around is more micromanagement than hauling installations anyway (which civilians can automate). This part of it just seems really unnecessary to me.
Though there doesn't need to be an additional button for it, there are enough options there already.  The behavior of the existing button can simply change (and if deemed better, renamed). With an optional limit (same as for "Load Installation") no functionality is lost at all.

[nuclearslurpee]

I actually consider the current functionality preferable. For example, one may want to send a fleet of 5 tugs to collect 3 ships from fleet A and 2 ships from fleet B, which would not work with the proposed change. I think a new order to the effect of "Tractor Maximum Ships" would be a good addition, just not as a replacement of the existing functionality.

[icekiss]

I actually consider the current functionality preferable. For example, one may want to send a fleet of 5 tugs to collect 3 ships from fleet A and 2 ships from fleet B, which would not work with the proposed change. I think a new order to the effect of "Tractor Maximum Ships" would be a good addition, just not as a replacement of the existing functionality.

Yeah, I thought that usecase might occur... It is possible with my proposal as well:
Currently: fleet A, "Tractor any Ship in Fleet", "Add Move", "Tractor any Ship in Fleet", "Add Move", "Tractor any Ship in Fleet", "Add Move", fleet B,
"Tractor any Ship in Fleet", "Add Move", "Tractor any Ship in Fleet", "Add Move"
-> 12 clicks
My proposal: fleet A, "Tractor any Ships in Fleet", "Maximum Ships", 3, "Add Move", fleet B, "Tractor any Ships in Fleet", "Maximum Ships", 2, "Add Move"
-> 8 clicks and 2 keystrokes

So even in your example, it wouldn't be more work than it is now (it would be more work if you need exactly 1 ship even though you could tractor multiple). The big advantage though: If you need 8 ships from fleet A and 4 ships from fleet B instead of 3 and 2, the number of clicks and keystrokes stays the same, while currently it would rise to 26 clicks.

All of that said, I am not opposed to a new button either. I just thought it might be better to try to limit how many buttons get added for yet more options. 

[nuclearslurpee]

I actually consider the current functionality preferable. For example, one may want to send a fleet of 5 tugs to collect 3 ships from fleet A and 2 ships from fleet B, which would not work with the proposed change. I think a new order to the effect of "Tractor Maximum Ships" would be a good addition, just not as a replacement of the existing functionality.

Yeah, I thought that usecase might occur... It is possible with my proposal as well:
Currently: fleet A, "Tractor any Ship in Fleet", "Add Move", "Tractor any Ship in Fleet", "Add Move", "Tractor any Ship in Fleet", "Add Move", fleet B,
"Tractor any Ship in Fleet", "Add Move", "Tractor any Ship in Fleet", "Add Move"
-> 12 clicks
My proposal: fleet A, "Tractor any Ships in Fleet", "Maximum Ships", 3, "Add Move", fleet B, "Tractor any Ships in Fleet", "Maximum Ships", 2, "Add Move"
-> 8 clicks and 2 keystrokes

So even in your example, it wouldn't be more work than it is now (it would be more work if you need exactly 1 ship even though you could tractor multiple). The big advantage though: If you need 8 ships from fleet A and 4 ships from fleet B instead of 3 and 2, the number of clicks and keystrokes stays the same, while currently it would rise to 26 clicks.

All of that said, I am not opposed to a new button either. I just thought it might be better to try to limit how many buttons get added for yet more options. 

The current way can actually be done in only <N> number of (double) clicks (per target fleet) where <N> is the number of ships to tractor. You can simply double-click the order to add it to the list, I will grant that a double click is worse for RSI than a single click but the lack of extra mouse movements means it is faster for those of us with intact wrists. 

I also personally try to avoid using the "Maximum Items" box, as I tend to quickly forget that it is set and give different orders to another fleet which accidentally use the same number. Usually I notice in time...

I think a new order is the best option here. The tractor orders are context-dependent, they only appear for a fleet with tractor beams, so I think any worry about clogging up the order list are not significant here compared to most other cases.

[paolot]

Maybe we could have multiple tractor beams per single tug (now, we can add them, but only one works), with a limit in the ship mass: i.e., one beams for a tug up to let's say 6,000 ton, two up to 9,000 ton, etc., and a maximum of 6 or 8 beams per ship.
Or, beams of different mass and different ability to tug multiples ships. And a corresponding research line to increase this mass and ability.
Now, one beam is 500 ton and can tractor one ship; then, we could build 800 ton beam that can tractor two ships, for double research points; then more, 1,000 ton for three ships, for 1.5 RPs of the previous level, etc.
I don't know anyway which proposal is simpler in coding terms between the various ones discussed here.

[icekiss]

I actually consider the current functionality preferable. For example, one may want to send a fleet of 5 tugs to collect 3 ships from fleet A and 2 ships from fleet B, which would not work with the proposed change. I think a new order to the effect of "Tractor Maximum Ships" would be a good addition, just not as a replacement of the existing functionality.

Yeah, I thought that usecase might occur... It is possible with my proposal as well:
Currently: fleet A, "Tractor any Ship in Fleet", "Add Move", "Tractor any Ship in Fleet", "Add Move", "Tractor any Ship in Fleet", "Add Move", fleet B,
"Tractor any Ship in Fleet", "Add Move", "Tractor any Ship in Fleet", "Add Move"
-> 12 clicks
My proposal: fleet A, "Tractor any Ships in Fleet", "Maximum Ships", 3, "Add Move", fleet B, "Tractor any Ships in Fleet", "Maximum Ships", 2, "Add Move"
-> 8 clicks and 2 keystrokes

So even in your example, it wouldn't be more work than it is now (it would be more work if you need exactly 1 ship even though you could tractor multiple). The big advantage though: If you need 8 ships from fleet A and 4 ships from fleet B instead of 3 and 2, the number of clicks and keystrokes stays the same, while currently it would rise to 26 clicks.

All of that said, I am not opposed to a new button either. I just thought it might be better to try to limit how many buttons get added for yet more options. 

The current way can actually be done in only <N> number of (double) clicks (per target fleet) where <N> is the number of ships to tractor. You can simply double-click the order to add it to the list, I will grant that a double click is worse for RSI than a single click but the lack of extra mouse movements means it is faster for those of us with intact wrists. 

I also personally try to avoid using the "Maximum Items" box, as I tend to quickly forget that it is set and give different orders to another fleet which accidentally use the same number. Usually I notice in time...

I think a new order is the best option here. The tractor orders are context-dependent, they only appear for a fleet with tractor beams, so I think any worry about clogging up the order list are not significant here compared to most other cases.

Alright, you have convinced me. Just adding another option is indeed the better way to go. 

Maybe we could have multiple tractor beams per single tug (now, we can add them, but only one works), with a limit in the ship mass: i.e., one beams for a tug up to let's say 6,000 ton, two up to 9,000 ton, etc., and a maximum of 6 or 8 beams per ship.
Or, beams of different mass and different ability to tug multiples ships. And a corresponding research line to increase this mass and ability.
Now, one beam is 500 ton and can tractor one ship; then, we could build 800 ton beam that can tractor two ships, for double research points; then more, 1,000 ton for three ships, for 1.5 RPs of the previous level, etc.
I don't know anyway which proposal is simpler in coding terms between the various ones discussed here.

Each ship only being able to tractor a single ship seems completely logical to me: No matter how big the tractoring ship, the towed ones would be way too close together. For such big size differences that tractoring multiple ships could possibly become an option, hangars are the way to go. 
Tractoring instead does not care about how big the towed ship is (slows things down, but towing is always possible) - leave that the way it is.