4.3 Suggestions

[Shinanygnz]

<snip>
What does everyone think of the idea of replacing construction/ordnance/fighter factories with Industrial capacity (IC). This would essentially be the same as having just construction factories but you could build multiple items at once. Any  IC that was returned to the pool would be unavailable for a time while it was retooled - I think 3 months is probably reasonable. Any new build IC would be immediately available.

Steve

Sounds great to me.  Do it, do it now.   :wink:

Stephen

[sloanjh (OP)]

What does everyone think of the idea of replacing construction/ordnance/fighter factories with Industrial capacity (IC). This would essentially be the same as having just construction factories but you could build multiple items at once. Any  IC that was returned to the pool would be unavailable for a time while it was retooled - I think 3 months is probably reasonable. Any new build IC would be immediately available.

I'm happy with the current system.  

John

[Steve Walmsley]

What does everyone think of the idea of replacing construction/ordnance/fighter factories with Industrial capacity (IC). This would essentially be the same as having just construction factories but you could build multiple items at once. Any  IC that was returned to the pool would be unavailable for a time while it was retooled - I think 3 months is probably reasonable. Any new build IC would be immediately available.

Sounds great to me.  Do it, do it now.  

I have been playing around with the  Industrial capacity / simultaneous build ideas and realised the code and the interface for this whole area needs a real clean up. So one way or the other, I am going to rewrite construction/ordnance/fighter factories to create a cleaner model. Below is my half finished idea for how this will look. Several of the buttons for the setup, etc are missing and the grids will probably end up different sizes but you get the idea. The various stockpile lists for missiles, fighters, PDC components and now Ship Components (if you choose to use that option) will be on a separate tab. The list on the left shows installations but the dropdown above has options for Fighters, Missiles, Ship Components, PDCs, Prefab PDCs, Assemble PDCs and Refit PDCs. As you click the options the build cost and materials appear in the bottom left listbox.

[attachment=0:139ey60g]IC.JPG[/attachment:139ey60g]
If you like the existing model you can use 100% of the industry for any one task but I think over time, players will probably set up part of the IC for various background production tasks such as fighters, missiles or infrastructure. My main concern is that with no restrictions, players could devote 100% of industry to fighters or missiles and churn them out very quickly. At the moment, missile construction is a significant constraint on missile ships and restricts their usefulness in a strategic rather than tactical sense. With the ability to instantly increase missile production to levels that could not be achieved in the past, this could make missile ships far more potent. I have considered a retool time similar to shipyards but the more I think about this, the less happy I am. There is no retool time at the moment for construction so it would be an added constraint that doesn't currently exist and building smaller items and buildings is not the same as building ships. However, I do want to do something to restrain the huge missile output so I have a couple of ideas.

One option is simply to place a limit on the percentage of industrial capacity that can be used for fighters and missiles. That percentage could be increased through research projects that would replace the existing projects for increasing ordnance and fighter production rates. The second option is a little more detailed but probably more realistic. In Aurora at the moment, you can simply cancel construction projects half-way through at any time. In reality, that wouldn't be as simple. So option two is to not allow cancellation of any construction projects once they are underway. It could be assumed that the necessary materials and trained manpower have been made available and cancelling all that at the drop of a hat simply isn't possible. In essence, you have to plan ahead a little more in terms of what you build. it would probably be a good idea to retain some capacity for short-term projects in case an emergency arose or perhaps generally devote percentages of construction to certain areas. However, it has occurred to me that one unintended consequence of the 'no cancellation' idea might be that players only built small quantities of items to avoid being stuck with long production times and that would lead to micromanagement. Therefore if I went with that idea, I think I would also add some type of mass production bonus so that the more of something you ordered, the cheaper it would be per item.  A variant on option 2 would be to allow cancellation but at some cost and delay - perhaps construction is halted but you don't get the capacity back for 3 months. Not sure how that would affect a mass production bonus though.

I have added the ability to build ship components. As I noted in another post, this is optional but the components will be used to shorten build times for ships if they are available. Also, when you scrap a ship you no longer get 25% of the wealth/materials. Instead you get all the various components added to the component stockpile of the population, with a few exceptions. The ship components that you cannot bulid and are lost when a ship is scrapped are as follows:

Armour
Crew Quarters (and smaller versions)
Engineering (and smaller versions)
Fuel Storage (and smaller versions)
Cargo Holds
Hangars
PDC Barracks
Bridge

it also occurred to me that the current method of bulding PDC components could be changed. You would build the actual components rather than the existing "Split the PDC into Chunks" method. The components would be transported to their destination where engineers or IC would get a huge head start on building the PDC depending on which components you shipped. This is just a thought at the moment and perhaps could be used alongside the existing method instead if replacing it

Steve

[backstab]

What does everyone think of the idea of replacing construction/ordnance/fighter factories with Industrial capacity (IC). This would essentially be the same as having just construction factories but you could build multiple items at once. Any  IC that was returned to the pool would be unavailable for a time while it was retooled - I think 3 months is probably reasonable. Any new build IC would be immediately available.

I'm happy with the current system.  

John

The more I think about it, the more I agree with John.   If you think about it , how long would a Mcdonald Douglas Factory that assembles Fighters take to retool and make missiles ? It would most probably be cheaper to just build a new one.

[IanD]

The more I think about it, the more I agree with John. If you think about it , how long would a Mcdonald Douglas Factory that assembles Fighters take to retool and make missiles ? It would most probably be cheaper to just build a new one.

The time required to build a new missile could simply be the time required to plug in a memory stick with the new missile design spec on it. You have already spent the time in developing the design in your R&D screen; do you really need to do it twice? Or you could simply delete the requirement to research every design.

You would only need more time to retool if the current machinery could not manufacture it. Even in the middle of the last century tank factories were running machine tools off paper tape programmes, change the tape, produced new /different components.

Regards

[Steve Walmsley]

The more I think about it, the more I agree with John. If you think about it , how long would a Mcdonald Douglas Factory that assembles Fighters take to retool and make missiles ? It would most probably be cheaper to just build a new one.

The time required to build a new missile could simply be the time required to plug in a memory stick with the new missile design spec on it. You have already spent the time in developing the design in your R&D screen; do you really need to do it twice? Or you could simply delete the requirement to research every design.

You would only need more time to retool if the current machinery could not manufacture it. Even in the middle of the last century tank factories were running machine tools off paper tape programmes, change the tape, produced new /different components.

I have been giving this more thought overnight. Whatever the new system is, I am going to avoid any retool time. Given the number of different items you can potentially build, it would just add too much micromanagement. I will likely add some restriction instead on the percentage of factories that can work on fighters and missiles. One other option is to have dedicated percentages for construction, missiles and fighters, which you could change through some type of conversion task.

Steve

[IanD]

One other option is to have dedicated percentages for construction, missiles and fighters, which you could change through some type of conversion task.

This looks like a good workable idea. Aircraft factories make aircraft, missile factories make missiles, but to have car plants make aircraft, while not impossible would take time to retool. The above looks quite rational. I like it.

Regards

[sloanjh (OP)]

Given the number of different items you can potentially build, it would just add too much micromanagement.

This was the part I was worried about, so I'm a lot happier.

Thanks,
John

[waresky]

Raise hands: NEW cleanup,new options,r EVER welcome.

More difference,more management=more realistic BUT more help for more players.

Same as many Research lab= more project initiated..

[Kurt]

The more I think about it, the more I agree with John. If you think about it , how long would a Mcdonald Douglas Factory that assembles Fighters take to retool and make missiles ? It would most probably be cheaper to just build a new one.

The time required to build a new missile could simply be the time required to plug in a memory stick with the new missile design spec on it. You have already spent the time in developing the design in your R&D screen; do you really need to do it twice? Or you could simply delete the requirement to research every design.

You would only need more time to retool if the current machinery could not manufacture it. Even in the middle of the last century tank factories were running machine tools off paper tape programmes, change the tape, produced new /different components.

I have been giving this more thought overnight. Whatever the new system is, I am going to avoid any retool time. Given the number of different items you can potentially build, it would just add too much micromanagement. I will likely add some restriction instead on the percentage of factories that can work on fighters and missiles. One other option is to have dedicated percentages for construction, missiles and fighters, which you could change through some type of conversion task.

Steve

"Retool time" is probably more realistic, but Aurora already has enough stuff that could be considered micromanagement, making it worse would probably not be a good idea.  I like the idea of general IC's, and the ability to build more than one thing at a time, but you already are including specialized factories for fuel and maintenance production.  How about dividing IC's into Heavy IC and Light IC.  Light IC would be used for missiles, fighters, and ship/PDC component construction, and Heavy IC would be used for everything else.  That way you couldn't concentrate all of your construction capacity on surge-producing missiles or fighters, and in any case it doesn't make sense to say that a factory producing heavy industrial tools for other factories one month can be switched over to producing missiles next month, or at all.  It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to say that such a factory could be converted from producing heavy industrial production equipment to heavy mining equipment, but it is a much bigger leap to producing intricate electronics like missiles or fighters.  

Kurt

[James Patten]

I like the idea of dividing up your industrial capacity among different projects.  In my current campaign I would have liked to allocate only a portion of my homeworld's factory capacity to building automated mines, it would have helped me not to run out of Duranium.

I also like the idea of components for ships.

[Steve Walmsley]

"Retool time" is probably more realistic, but Aurora already has enough stuff that could be considered micromanagement, making it worse would probably not be a good idea.  I like the idea of general IC's, and the ability to build more than one thing at a time, but you already are including specialized factories for fuel and maintenance production.  How about dividing IC's into Heavy IC and Light IC.  Light IC would be used for missiles, fighters, and ship/PDC component construction, and Heavy IC would be used for everything else.  That way you couldn't concentrate all of your construction capacity on surge-producing missiles or fighters, and in any case it doesn't make sense to say that a factory producing heavy industrial tools for other factories one month can be switched over to producing missiles next month, or at all.  It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to say that such a factory could be converted from producing heavy industrial production equipment to heavy mining equipment, but it is a much bigger leap to producing intricate electronics like missiles or fighters.  

I agree that retool time would probably be the most realistic but as you say, that would involve a lot of micromanagement and the realism gain probably isn't worth the gameplay penalty.

The Heavy/Light IC is an interesting idea. It is similar to the idea of restricting the missile/fighter percentages but it would also restrict the heavy industry percentage, although I am not that bothered about restricting heavy construction as I don't believe that would cause a balance problem. My concern is that I want to try and streamline the construction into a single interface with a single overall industrial capacity and Heavy IC and Light IC would lie about halfway between the current situation and the one I am aiming for. It would effectively combine fighter and ordnance factories but leave them separate to construction factories. I also mentioned the idea of converting industry from fighter/missile to heavy in a post earlier today, which would result in similar mechanics to the Heavy/Light concept. After further thought though I think that using that mechanic could cause some issues around the percentage allocated to each construction project.

I went for the concept of a percentage of industrial capacity allocated to each construction project (as shown in the screenshot in the earlier post) so that adding IC or removing IC from a planet wouldn't cause problems with existing allocation. The other option was allocating a specific number of factories to a particular project but in that scenario, removing factories would require a decision on which projects would be affected while adding new factories would result in unallocated capacity, both of which could lead to micromanagement. With the percentage concept, you can add and remove factories without worrying about existing allocations to projects. However, with a light/heavy concept or a conversion concept, the problem would return as you would have to specify whether you were adding/removing heavy or light. Within the overall percentage concept, the mechanic of restricting the total percentage you could dedicate to fighters or missiles would effectively create a section of light industry. The non-fighter and non-missile percentages (the heavy industry) wouldn't be able to produce fighters or missiles. The reverse wouldn't be true as 'light' industry (the max percentage that could be dedicated to fighters/missiles) would still be able to carry out 'heavy' tasks but that is far less of a concern from a game balance perspective.

Steve

[ShadoCat]

I have added the ability to build ship components. As I noted in another post, this is optional but the components will be used to shorten build times for ships if they are available. Also, when you scrap a ship you no longer get 25% of the wealth/materials. Instead you get all the various components added to the component stockpile of the population, with a few exceptions.

Can you scrap components to get 25% back?

That will help keep the database clean since you won't have to track warehouses full of 50 year old items that you'll never use.

[mavikfelna]

   "Steve Walmsley wrote:I have added the ability to build ship components. As I noted in another post, this is optional but the components will be used to shorten build times for ships if they are available. Also, when you scrap a ship you no longer get 25% of the wealth/materials. Instead you get all the various components added to the component stockpile of the population, with a few exceptions. "



Can you scrap components to get 25% back?

That will help keep the database clean since you won't have to track warehouses full of 50 year old items that you'll never use.

Armour
Crew Quarters (and smaller versions)
Engineering (and smaller versions)
Fuel Storage (and smaller versions)
Cargo Holds
Hangars
PDC Barracks
Bridge

Also, from the non-component parts list, you should get some scrap value out of that.

--Mav

[welchbloke]

I also like this paradigm but I am cognisant of the possibility of generating huge amounts of micromanagement without necessarily improving the gaming experience.  How about treating component manufacture in the same manner as mines etc?  Have a multiple selection tree for contruction factories something like the officers window for command opportunities.  In the components selection have all of the racial designed components available for construction.  So if a player wants to build some components to sell they do it that way.  If they want to build a ship they don't need to build components (the shipyard handles it).  I like the idea of getting components back if you scrap a ship.  These components then become available for sale.  I suppose, if its possible, the stockpiled components could be used to reduce the construction time of a ship in the slipyards.  Reduce time of construction by the percentage of the mass of the component?  Anyway these are my (probably random) musings   but the more I think about it, the more I think you might have hit on an ideal solution that would suit everyone.

Shipyards would remain as they are now - same cost, same mechanics etc. with one exception. When they begin building a ship, they check for available components stockpiled on the planet. If any are available, they are removed from the stockpile and the ship construction prtogress advances to a percentage equal to the cost required for the stockpiled components. For example, assume you had stockpiled engines, either by building them or recovering them from a scrapped ship, and you built a survey ship with six engines for which the engines comprised thirty percent of the cost. When you pressed the Add Task button, the six engines would be removed from the stockpile and the progress percentage would start at 30%. After that, construction would continue normally. It's a little more complex because the mineral consumption for the rest of the task would be incorrect but I could fix that in the background at the start of the task. If you had no components stockpiled, the ship would be built by the shipyard in exactly the same way it is built now.

This method allows for players who want to build components or re-use them and also for players who want to ignore the idea entirely. It also means I wouldn't have to modify the NPR construction code.

What does everyone think of the idea of replacing construction/ordnance/fighter factories with Industrial capacity (IC). This would essentially be the same as having just construction factories but you could build multiple items at once. Any  IC that was returned to the pool would be unavailable for a time while it was retooled - I think 3 months is probably reasonable. Any new build IC would be immediately available.

Steve

Not bad for an idea that I had at OMG it's earlier whilst doing a night shift   Now that you have settled on the IC method for construction are you still going to use the shipyard methodology outlined above?