Author Topic: 4.7 (latest) SUGGESTIONS  (Read 12248 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline boggo2300

  • Registered
  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 895
  • Thanked: 16 times
Re: 4.7 (latest) SUGGESTIONS
« Reply #15 on: November 12, 2009, 10:15:40 PM »
Steve,  I seem to remember back in SA that you could make Task Forces subordinate to other Task Forces, like you can in Aurora with TG's, this would be nice for creating more complex command structures if it's not difficult ( I'm thinking   top TF named 1st Fleet, with subordinate tf's 1st, 2nd & 3rd divisions, each made up of severa Task Groups of ships, as in BATRON1, BATRON2, CRURON1, CRURON 2 all being part of 1st Division 1st Fleet)

not sure if i've explained this well, I just have a more complex command structure in mind than is currently possible with Aurora
The boggosity of the universe tends towards maximum.
 

Offline waresky (OP)

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1486
  • Thanked: 8 times
  • Alpine Mountaineer..ohh Yeah!
Re: 4.7 (latest) SUGGESTIONS
« Reply #16 on: November 13, 2009, 08:54:58 AM »
....CRURON..bogo..u r Traveller addicted same me?
this "Cruiser Squadroon" definition coming from High Guard.
ESCORTRON-ASSAULTRON-BATRON-CRURON r all in Imperium universe:) none all can know this acronymus
 

Offline boggo2300

  • Registered
  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 895
  • Thanked: 16 times
Re: 4.7 (latest) SUGGESTIONS
« Reply #17 on: November 13, 2009, 03:18:57 PM »
Yes I did play Traveller, from 1st Edition all the way through the abomination that was Mark Millers Traveller, but CRURON, BATRON, DESFLOT arent straight Traveller terms, both Weber and Ringo use them in their books, and I have a feeling they are actually US Navy terms
The boggosity of the universe tends towards maximum.
 

Offline Beersatron

  • Gold Supporter
  • Rear Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 996
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
Re: 4.7 (latest) SUGGESTIONS
« Reply #18 on: November 13, 2009, 05:09:51 PM »
I first saw the CRURON etc usage from reading the Harrington series myself. I always presumed that Weber took the usage from modern day Naval terminology?
 

Offline boggo2300

  • Registered
  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 895
  • Thanked: 16 times
Re: 4.7 (latest) SUGGESTIONS
« Reply #19 on: November 15, 2009, 10:45:30 PM »
Hmm Steve, would it be possible to set percentages for mines/automated mines based on what minerals are available (sick of my mines on mercury wasting time with tritonium, I need Duranium dammit!)
The boggosity of the universe tends towards maximum.
 

Offline Father Tim

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 2162
  • Thanked: 531 times
Re: 4.7 (latest) SUGGESTIONS
« Reply #20 on: November 16, 2009, 10:32:50 AM »
Quote from: "boggo2300"
Hmm Steve, would it be possible to set percentages for mines/automated mines based on what minerals are available (sick of my mines on mercury wasting time with tritonium, I need Duranium dammit!)


Unlikely, as mines simply dig up what's there.  You won't get more Duranium if you don't produce Tritanium as well, you'll simply get no Tritanium.  Basically, for every tonne of ore the mine processes, X amount of a particular mineral is produced - independant of the amount of any other mineral produced.
 

Offline Beersatron

  • Gold Supporter
  • Rear Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 996
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
Re: 4.7 (latest) SUGGESTIONS
« Reply #21 on: November 16, 2009, 12:25:58 PM »
Quote from: "Father Tim"
Quote from: "boggo2300"
Hmm Steve, would it be possible to set percentages for mines/automated mines based on what minerals are available (sick of my mines on mercury wasting time with tritonium, I need Duranium dammit!)


Unlikely, as mines simply dig up what's there.  You won't get more Duranium if you don't produce Tritanium as well, you'll simply get no Tritanium.  Basically, for every tonne of ore the mine processes, X amount of a particular mineral is produced - independant of the amount of any other mineral produced.

I was under the impression that each mineral is a distinct deposit therefore it would be feasible to direct all your mines to work on just the one mineral/deposit/vein.

Say you have 100 mines on a planet that has:
0.5 Duranium
0.3 Sorium
0.2 Gallicite
0.1 Neutronium

But, all you wanted was the Duranium for now, so why not just direct all your mines to concentrate on Duranium and ignore the other deposits?
 

Offline Erik L

  • Administrator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 5658
  • Thanked: 374 times
  • Forum Admin
  • Discord Username: icehawke
  • 2020 Supporter 2020 Supporter : Donate for 2020
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
    Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
Re: 4.7 (latest) SUGGESTIONS
« Reply #22 on: November 16, 2009, 02:25:06 PM »
Quote from: "Beersatron"
Quote from: "Father Tim"
Quote from: "boggo2300"
Hmm Steve, would it be possible to set percentages for mines/automated mines based on what minerals are available (sick of my mines on mercury wasting time with tritonium, I need Duranium dammit!)


Unlikely, as mines simply dig up what's there.  You won't get more Duranium if you don't produce Tritanium as well, you'll simply get no Tritanium.  Basically, for every tonne of ore the mine processes, X amount of a particular mineral is produced - independant of the amount of any other mineral produced.

I was under the impression that each mineral is a distinct deposit therefore it would be feasible to direct all your mines to work on just the one mineral/deposit/vein.

Say you have 100 mines on a planet that has:
0.5 Duranium
0.3 Sorium
0.2 Gallicite
0.1 Neutronium

But, all you wanted was the Duranium for now, so why not just direct all your mines to concentrate on Duranium and ignore the other deposits?

It's my understanding that each mine will mine its full capacity of each mineral. So if you have 100 mines that mine at a rate of 1200/year, then each year you will get 600 Duranium (using your .5 example).

Offline sloanjh

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 2805
  • Thanked: 112 times
  • 2020 Supporter 2020 Supporter : Donate for 2020
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
Re: 4.7 (latest) SUGGESTIONS
« Reply #23 on: November 17, 2009, 12:28:04 AM »
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
Quote from: "Beersatron"
I was under the impression that each mineral is a distinct deposit therefore it would be feasible to direct all your mines to work on just the one mineral/deposit/vein.

Say you have 100 mines on a planet that has:
0.5 Duranium
0.3 Sorium
0.2 Gallicite
0.1 Neutronium

But, all you wanted was the Duranium for now, so why not just direct all your mines to concentrate on Duranium and ignore the other deposits?

It's my understanding that each mine will mine its full capacity of each mineral. So if you have 100 mines that mine at a rate of 1200/year, then each year you will get 600 Duranium (using your .5 example).

Ditto.  600 Duranium, 360 Sorium, 240 Gallicite, 120 Neutronium per year.

John
 

Offline Hawkeye

  • Silver Supporter
  • Vice Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1059
  • Thanked: 5 times
  • Silver Supporter Silver Supporter : Support the forums with a Silver subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
    2023 Supporter 2023 Supporter : Donate for 2023
Re: 4.7 (latest) SUGGESTIONS
« Reply #24 on: November 17, 2009, 09:34:12 AM »
Agreed.
I allways imagined it as there simply being Trans-Newtonian Ore with various amounts of the different elements. You just throw the ore into the mine, which actually is more of a ore processing plant,  and it will extract whatever there is, i.e. if 1 ton of ore contains 50kg of Duranium and 35kg of Tritanium, not taking the 35kg Trit will not suddenly make more Dur appear
Ralph Hoenig, Germany
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11695
  • Thanked: 20557 times
Re: 4.7 (latest) SUGGESTIONS
« Reply #25 on: November 17, 2009, 11:19:49 AM »
Quote from: "boggo2300"
Hmm Steve, would it be possible to set percentages for mines/automated mines based on what minerals are available (sick of my mines on mercury wasting time with tritonium, I need Duranium dammit!)
Mines have an annual output and this applies to every mineral that is present based on their accessibility. So if their output is 20 tons, then it will mine 20 tons of every accessibility 1.0 mineral, 12 tons of every accessibility 0.6 mineral, etc. The number of minerals present doesn't change the amount mined for each mineral.

Steve
 

Offline IanD

  • Registered
  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 725
  • Thanked: 20 times
Re: 4.7 (latest) SUGGESTIONS
« Reply #26 on: November 19, 2009, 05:11:12 AM »
Steve
Is it possible to add infrastructure and installations to Mars in the set-up phase before the game begins? For 4.7 I would like to start with a small Mars colony with a single terraforming installation. But that needs infrastructure to support the workers in addition to an installation. I guess I could do it soon after starting the game, or with a terraforming ship, but it would make the back-story so much neater and easier to have it already in place.

Regards
IanD
 

Offline Beersatron

  • Gold Supporter
  • Rear Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 996
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
Re: 4.7 (latest) SUGGESTIONS
« Reply #27 on: November 19, 2009, 09:08:52 AM »
Quote from: "IanD"
Steve
Is it possible to add infrastructure and installations to Mars in the set-up phase before the game begins? For 4.7 I would like to start with a small Mars colony with a single terraforming installation. But that needs infrastructure to support the workers in addition to an installation. I guess I could do it soon after starting the game, or with a terraforming ship, but it would make the back-story so much neater and easier to have it already in place.

Regards

When you first start the game, enable SM mode and go to the economy screen. I can't remember the exact button but there will be one on the summary tab about edited a colony, from here you can add population, infrastructure and installations plus minerals. Then in the terraforming tab you can add gases to whatever level you like. It is quick and easy.

Lately, I have edited Mars to be Earth like and to have a thriving 100million colony with a small fleet base for FACs, although I gather you want to start with just a small terraforming team and play out the whole process.
 

Offline IanD

  • Registered
  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 725
  • Thanked: 20 times
Re: 4.7 (latest) SUGGESTIONS
« Reply #28 on: November 19, 2009, 09:56:51 AM »
Quote from: "Beersatron"
When you first start the game, enable SM mode and go to the economy screen. I can't remember the exact button but there will be one on the summary tab about edited a colony, from here you can add population, infrastructure and installations plus minerals. Then in the terraforming tab you can add gases to whatever level you like. It is quick and easy.

Thamks Beersatron! It will make writing up the Solar League so much easier. I had a vague idea from Kurts writings it should be possible, just had no idea how. All I need now is 4.7, it's really looking good! :D

Regards
IanD
 

Offline Charlie Beeler

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1381
  • Thanked: 3 times
Re: 4.7 (latest) SUGGESTIONS
« Reply #29 on: November 19, 2009, 11:38:04 AM »
The ability to refit fighters.

The ability to repair fighters that return with battle damage.  Carriers should be able to perform component repairs from maintenance stores.  

A way to designate a fighter NMC (non-mission capable) that keeps it from launching when the squadron is ordered to launch.
Amateurs study tactics, Professionals study logistics - paraphrase attributed to Gen Omar Bradley