v2.6.0 Changes Discussion Thread

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

I have no idea how to read that new table with the summaries.

The Engines and Fuel line (for example) is just the sum of the specific component lines for engines, jump engines and fuel.

It's optional and off by default, so you ignore if it isn't useful.

[boolybooly]

Grouping component types inspires me to mention something that sometimes strikes me in the ship design window, looking through the components layout in a v2.1.1 campaign I am playing.

Not sure if you have addressed this already in v2.6 but when I am doing sensors for example, hunting high and low for active/EM/TH/ELINT and often wish they were next to each other. Weapons too, gauss rail laser cannonade particle etc and it would make sense to have power plants next door to these, if you see what I mean i.e. having components grouped by class and related purpose, like the way command components are all together.

Alphabetical is usable and logical, as long as you know what the thing you are looking for is called! But if you are adding refinements... just thought this might be worth mentioning.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

Grouping component types inspires me to mention something that sometimes strikes me in the ship design window, looking through the components layout in a v2.1.1 campaign I am playing.

Not sure if you have addressed this already in v2.6 but when I am doing sensors for example, hunting high and low for active/EM/TH/ELINT and often wish they were next to each other. Weapons too, gauss rail laser cannonade particle etc and it would make sense to have power plants next door to these, if you see what I mean i.e. having components grouped by class and related purpose, like the way command components are all together.

Alphabetical is usable and logical, as long as you know what the thing you are looking for is called! But if you are adding refinements... just thought this might be worth mentioning.

Interesting idea. I could change the component names to (for example) Sensors - Active, Sensors - EM, Sensors - Thermal. Maybe as an alternative option to the existing names.

[Froggiest1982]

Grouping component types inspires me to mention something that sometimes strikes me in the ship design window, looking through the components layout in a v2.1.1 campaign I am playing.

Not sure if you have addressed this already in v2.6 but when I am doing sensors for example, hunting high and low for active/EM/TH/ELINT and often wish they were next to each other. Weapons too, gauss rail laser cannonade particle etc and it would make sense to have power plants next door to these, if you see what I mean i.e. having components grouped by class and related purpose, like the way command components are all together.

Alphabetical is usable and logical, as long as you know what the thing you are looking for is called! But if you are adding refinements... just thought this might be worth mentioning.

Interesting idea. I could change the component names to (for example) Sensors - Active, Sensors - EM, Sensors - Thermal. Maybe as an alternative option to the existing names.

I don't think a name change is required, perhaps just an extra layer. I.E. current you have type - name, we could move to a category - type - name

The branch view on the ship design will then process

Sensors+
            - Active Sensor+
                                  - 2200 Ravelli Systems Active Sensor
            - EM Sensor    +
                                  - 2200 Ravelli Systems EM Sensor
            - TH Sensor    +
                                  - 2200 Ravelli Systems TH Sensor

instead of the current

Active Sensor+
                    - 2200 Ravelli Systems Active Sensor

EM Sensor    +
                    - 2200 Ravelli Systems EM Sensor

TH Sensor    +
                    - 2200 Ravelli Systems TH Sensor

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

Grouping component types inspires me to mention something that sometimes strikes me in the ship design window, looking through the components layout in a v2.1.1 campaign I am playing.

Not sure if you have addressed this already in v2.6 but when I am doing sensors for example, hunting high and low for active/EM/TH/ELINT and often wish they were next to each other. Weapons too, gauss rail laser cannonade particle etc and it would make sense to have power plants next door to these, if you see what I mean i.e. having components grouped by class and related purpose, like the way command components are all together.

Alphabetical is usable and logical, as long as you know what the thing you are looking for is called! But if you are adding refinements... just thought this might be worth mentioning.

Interesting idea. I could change the component names to (for example) Sensors - Active, Sensors - EM, Sensors - Thermal. Maybe as an alternative option to the existing names.

I don't think a name change is required, perhaps just an extra layer. I.E. current you have type - name, we could move to a category - type - name

The branch view on the ship design will then process

Sensors+
            - Active Sensor+
                                  - 2200 Ravelli Systems Active Sensor
            - EM Sensor    +
                                  - 2200 Ravelli Systems EM Sensor
            - TH Sensor    +
                                  - 2200 Ravelli Systems TH Sensor

instead of the current

Active Sensor+
                    - 2200 Ravelli Systems Active Sensor

EM Sensor    +
                    - 2200 Ravelli Systems EM Sensor

TH Sensor    +
                    - 2200 Ravelli Systems TH Sensor

Yes, that is exactly the same conclusion I came to as well - working on it right now

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

I've been playing around with the categories and currently have this layout. This race doesn't have every type of component, but it has enough to show the principle. I'm not really sure what to do with Command and Control. It seems odd to leave it in its own category, but not sure where to put it. Anyway, I'll take another look in the morning

[Froggiest1982]

I've been playing around with the categories and currently have this layout. This race doesn't have every type of component, but it has enough to show the principle. I'm not really sure what to do with Command and Control. It seems odd to leave it in its own category, but not sure where to put it. Anyway, I'll take another look in the morning

I believe this is a very subjective matter, and there will likely never be 100% agreement on how the categories should be defined. That said, I would approach it with a focus on optimizing the structure of the hierarchy. For example, Command, Engineering, and Life Support could be grouped together under a category like "Core Systems" or "Essential Systems", as they are fundamental to the ship’s operation and survival.

Using the same logic, one might argue that Production, Transport, and Logistics could be grouped under "Support Systems" or "Operational Support", since they relate more to resource handling and auxiliary functions.

I’ll leave the final naming to you, as I’m sure there are even better ways to define and label all components.

EDIT: Back to the quote "I believe this is a very subjective matter, and there will likely never be 100% agreement on how the categories should be defined." maybe a toggle group components may help as those who are used to the old ways can keep using their preferred view. Similar to what is currently setup in the colony view tree.

[serger]

I'm not really sure what to do with Command and Control.

Maybe move Diplomacy Module and Science Department into something like Non-Combat Control.

[db48x]

I've been playing around with the categories and currently have this layout. This race doesn't have every type of component, but it has enough to show the principle. I'm not really sure what to do with Command and Control. It seems odd to leave it in its own category, but not sure where to put it. Anyway, I'll take another look in the morning

I really like this idea and want to encourage it, but also I laughed loudly when I saw that Diplo Modules are under Production

[Ghostly]

Yes, the current baseline will be 100%. The change is intended to allow longer deployment times without prohibitive space requirements. It won't make a lot of difference for ships with low deployment times, as their crew requirements are a much smaller percentage of total hull space anyway.

More efficient use of space is a real concept, not simply a way to 'dump RP to reduce personal space'. Last year two of us lived in about a 20'x7' space for nine months. That space includes a king-sized bed, a shower, a cubicle with toilet and sink, an oven, a three-ring hob, kitchen sink, fridge-freezer, two small couches, a dining table, two seats (driver/passenger), several overhead compartments, plus other storage. It also has 12v and 240v electric systems, plumbing for the two sinks and shower, gas for the over/hob and fridge, central heating, etc.

Yet it always seems like we have plenty of space. That is great design within a limited space - especially as we have been used to living in houses with 5+ bedrooms and multiple, large reception rooms. In fact, we have changed our perspective so much as a result of our time travelling, we are looking for a smaller house, as the previous ones now seem to have a lot of wasted space.

So to the original point, this is a game mechanics change to allow longer duration deployments, particularly for larger ships where the required crew space can be hard to justify vs other systems. Given my own recent experience with how good design can change your perception of space, it seemed like a reasonable way to implement it.

Just for interest, here is the motorhome (and yes, its French ).
https://www.rapido-motorhome.co.uk/motorhome_a-class_serie-80df_8096df.chtml

I see. Perhaps it's just me never bothering to make long-deployment craft (my 6-month frigates and destroyers allocate around 6% to crewquarters, 1-year capital ships tend to average around 7-8%, 4-year surveyor ships seem to have around 7%) so I never really had any designs that truly suffered from too much crew space. I still feel like having just 2% of a battleship's mass be enough to comfortably sustain its crew for a year might be too low, but on the other hand, I guess building interstellar battleships incapable of operating for more than a year is the unrealistic part? But even with denser crew quarters, one would still have to allocate full space for engineering or maintenance storage, so short deployment times will still result in more effective designs.

I've been playing around with the categories and currently have this layout. This race doesn't have every type of component, but it has enough to show the principle. I'm not really sure what to do with Command and Control. It seems odd to leave it in its own category, but not sure where to put it. Anyway, I'll take another look in the morning

This is great! Perhaps you could put the Diplomacy Module under "Command" (but outside "Command and Control"), as it does generate a commander slot. Also, having category menus be un-collapsed by default  would probably be important since otherwise ship design will gain a lot of extra clicks 

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

I believe this is a very subjective matter, and there will likely never be 100% agreement on how the categories should be defined. That said, I would approach it with a focus on optimizing the structure of the hierarchy. For example, Command, Engineering, and Life Support could be grouped together under a category like "Core Systems" or "Essential Systems", as they are fundamental to the ship’s operation and survival.

Using the same logic, one might argue that Production, Transport, and Logistics could be grouped under "Support Systems" or "Operational Support", since they relate more to resource handling and auxiliary functions.

I’ll leave the final naming to you, as I’m sure there are even better ways to define and label all components.

EDIT: Back to the quote "I believe this is a very subjective matter, and there will likely never be 100% agreement on how the categories should be defined." maybe a toggle group components may help as those who are used to the old ways can keep using their preferred view. Similar to what is currently setup in the colony view tree.

We seem to be thinking alike. I have had internet issues today (and still can't send or receive much more than text), so not had chance to review the thread, but already moved command and control in with crew and engineering and called it Essential Systems

I think production and transport are possibly too large to be a single category, but it does make sense. I am changing the component type descriptions to be more consistent as well, so could prefix those with production. This is the current state of play.

[nuclearslurpee]

I might rename "Combat - Energy" to "Combat - Beam". Otherwise looks good to me.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

The race on the screenshots doesn't have every component type, so here is the list from the database, with the current assignment.

[boolybooly]

That looks a lot better imho.

[Kiero]

In my opinion, the Diplomatic Modul belongs more to the group in which Command and Control is (Essential Systems).