Author Topic: Suggestions for v5.1  (Read 50203 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Nabobalis

  • Guest
Re: Suggestions for v5.0
« Reply #225 on: February 20, 2010, 05:12:41 PM »
Maybe, when a JP is found in a system, it shows up on the galactic map as an unknown system so I could neatly organise the map before I've explored the system?
 

Offline Erik L

  • Administrator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 5690
  • Thanked: 421 times
  • Forum Admin
  • Discord Username: icehawke
Re: Suggestions for v5.0
« Reply #226 on: February 20, 2010, 05:19:56 PM »
Quote from: "Nabobalis"
Maybe, when a JP is found in a system, it shows up on the galactic map as an unknown system so I could neatly organise the map before I've explored the system?

The system is not generated until the JP is explored. Think of it as finding a closed door. You don't know what is on the other side until you open.

Nabobalis

  • Guest
Re: Suggestions for v5.0
« Reply #227 on: February 20, 2010, 05:30:44 PM »
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
Quote from: "Nabobalis"
Maybe, when a JP is found in a system, it shows up on the galactic map as an unknown system so I could neatly organise the map before I've explored the system?

The system is not generated until the JP is explored. Think of it as finding a closed door. You don't know what is on the other side until you open.

Hmm, so nothing is generated? Can a blank icon at least be generated on discovery of a JP in the galactic map? It would so help with my analness  :cry:
 

Offline schroeam

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • s
  • Posts: 217
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • "Let's try a new strategy, let the Wookiee win"
Re: Suggestions for v5.0
« Reply #228 on: February 20, 2010, 05:36:07 PM »
Quote from: "Nabobalis"
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
Quote from: "Nabobalis"
Maybe, when a JP is found in a system, it shows up on the galactic map as an unknown system so I could neatly organise the map before I've explored the system?

The system is not generated until the JP is explored. Think of it as finding a closed door. You don't know what is on the other side until you open.

Hmm, so nothing is generated? Can a blank icon at least be generated on discovery of a JP in the galactic map? It would so help with my analness  :cry:
You can select display options in the galactic map to show systems that have unexplored jump points.

Adam.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 12236
  • Thanked: 24333 times
  • 2025 Supporter 2025 Supporter : Support the forums in 2025
    Gold Supporter Gold Supporter :
    Above & Beyond Supporter Above & Beyond Supporter :
Re: Suggestions for v5.1
« Reply #229 on: February 21, 2010, 05:15:29 AM »
As there are a lot of good ideas in this thread that I haven't had time to implement, I would like to keep it going rather than start a new thread. Therefore I have changed the title to v5.1 suggestions.

Steve
 

Offline Venec

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • V
  • Posts: 47
Re: Suggestions for v5.1
« Reply #230 on: February 21, 2010, 07:53:23 AM »
Suggestion from other thread:

Quote
On a side note, if you could assign missions to fighters wings, for example issue t o imaginary 1st fighter wing "intercept all fighters" at waypoint 1 with a radious of, let's say, 1m kms, it would be sweet.
 

Offline Brian Neumann

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1214
  • Thanked: 3 times
Re: Suggestions for v5.1
« Reply #231 on: February 21, 2010, 11:38:28 AM »
I noticed that on higher tech starts the computer does not make optimum use of its tech on system design.  The one that caught my eye was a 10cm x-ray laser with a capaciter 16 built in.  I think it is automatically putting in the best capaciters possible regardless of the power actually needed.  While some of this is always going to be going on, perhaps having a check to make sure that the total power is not higher than the weapon requires.  Overshooting by a little bit is not really a problem, but overshooting by more than 5 times what is required gets a little silly.

Brian
 

Offline Commodore_Areyar

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • Posts: 97
  • I will format your cruiser!
Re: Suggestions for v5.1
« Reply #232 on: February 23, 2010, 08:46:23 PM »
Would it be possible to have officer traits affect autotargetting preferences?

Ex: an aggressive officer tries to target bigger targets, while defensive officers may keep more guns in reserve for PD.

As soon as individual ships individually decide on priority targets, a senior officer with good operations skill might allow better coordinated attacks amongst ships in a taskforce or even between forces.
(As I understand it, current system provides pretty optimal firing solutions.)
images of planets etc
 

Offline nichaey

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • n
  • Posts: 42
Re: Suggestions for v5.1
« Reply #233 on: February 24, 2010, 03:55:24 AM »
I know this has been mentioned before, but I don't know if it's made it's way here yet.

I think that missiles without warheads should still do damage. (unless Im mistaken and they actually do)
I'm looking at this mainly from the AmM role, but anything going 20,000 Km/s should be able to do enough damage to destroy a missile. you might have to rebalance the to hit ratio, but I feel that this would be more realistic
 

Nabobalis

  • Guest
Re: Suggestions for v5.1
« Reply #234 on: February 24, 2010, 06:39:50 AM »
A quick way of adding all the components for ships to be built by the construction factories before the ship is laid in the shipyard. Or maybe a way of it being done automatically when a ship is laid on the shipyard tab?

Side note 1: How much construction time is saved when the components already happen to be built when a ship is laid down?

Refitting a ship with an upgraded component. For example, you happen to have a spare couple of engines lying around, which happen to be better than the current ship undergoing an overhaul. So you just want to replace those engines.

Side note 2: Is damage control the only way to repair a damaged component? Since an overhaul doesn't seem to fix a damaged component, nor is there an option that I can see on the TG page to fix ships at a planet.
 

Offline Hawkeye

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1059
  • Thanked: 5 times
  • 2023 Supporter 2023 Supporter : Supporter of the forum in 2023
    2024 Supporter 2024 Supporter : Supporter of the forum for 2024
    Silver Supporter Silver Supporter :
Re: Suggestions for v5.1
« Reply #235 on: February 24, 2010, 10:32:22 AM »
Shipyards can repair damage
Ralph Hoenig, Germany
 

Offline MoonDragon

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • M
  • Posts: 81
Re: Suggestions for v5.1
« Reply #236 on: February 24, 2010, 12:56:13 PM »
When I start a new game with increased population, various production (factories, research, shipyards, etc) aspects reflect the change. I'd also like to see the officer pool reflect it as well. I know I can always push the "Add More" button, but I'm getting spoiled. :)
(@)
 

Offline tanq_tonic

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • t
  • Posts: 25
Re: Suggestions for v4.9
« Reply #237 on: February 24, 2010, 01:42:28 PM »
Quote from: "sloanjh"
This is merely a cosmetic change for ground unit names, so it might not be worth the coding and DB change....

I like to name my battalions by type and number within the type, e.g. 1st Armored, 2nd Armored, 1st (not 3rd) Infantry, 2nd Infantry, etc.

My problem occurs in the various displays (e.g. during officer assignment) - most of them sort alphabetically, so I end up with

1st Armored
1st Airborne
1st Infantry
10th Infantry
2nd Armored
2nd Airborne
...

What I'd like is all units of the same type together.  So the proposal is to split the names of ground units up into to pieces: a "type name" (or whatever you want to call it) and a "sequence number".  So the 1st Armored would have a type name of "Armored" and a sequence number of "1".  If sequence number was "none" or blank, then it wouldn't be part of the name, e.g. a type name of "Rico's Roughnecks" and sequence number of "none" would come out as "Rico's Roughnecks".  The ordering could then be based on the type name, with a secondary ordering based on the (numerical, not string) sequence number.  

Actually, the same sort of thing could be done for task groups too - right now I'm naming my TG "Ferret 001", "Ferret 002", etc. so that the sorting doesn't put Ferret 1, 10, and 100 next to each other.

This isn't high priority - on the ground units side I've simply started naming things "Armored 1st", "Armored 2nd" etc., then read them right to left.  Just a thought that's been nagging me for a while....

John

Seconded with another variation.  Allow the user to set the "basename" so that one doesn't have to retype "Armored 1st" and "Armored 2nd", but let the user type in a "base name" of "Armored" with the automatic numbering of the user defined base to automatically get "Armored 001" "Armored 002"
 

Offline Kurt

  • Gold Supporter
  • Vice Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1896
  • Thanked: 3899 times
  • 2024 Supporter 2024 Supporter : Supporter of the forum for 2024
    2023 Supporter 2023 Supporter : Supporter of the forum in 2023
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter :
Re: Suggestions for v5.1
« Reply #238 on: February 24, 2010, 03:56:09 PM »
Steve -

I'm pretty sure I (and probably others <G>) have brought this issue up before, and I'm also pretty sure I know why you've declined to make any changes, but I've been thinking about this lately and thought I'd bring it up again, to see if anything has changed.  

I have been reading Ringo's "Live Free or Die" lately.  Excellent book, I can recommend it unreservedly.  IMO, of course.  At one point in the book the author goes into a little exposition about how difficult it is to get the "lay of the land" in a solar system, i.e., how hard it is to figure out where all of the planets and such are from a standing start.  Especially from a couple of billion kilometers away.  In aurora an exploration ship can tell exactly where everything is instantaneously after entering a system, which not only exceeds the bounds of credibility, but, as one attorney I know said (about something else), blows way past the bounds of even incredibility.  

It seems to me that upon entering a system the explorer would be able to determine the system primary immediately, but nothing else.  It might take months to find all of the planets, even with good survey instruments and scanners, and longer to determine the location of asteroids.  Now, I'm not suggesting we take it to extremes of taking years of constant effort to determine the location of every last comet and asteroid, however, instantaneous is problematic.  

I suspect that in the past you have avoided dealing with this issue because of the difficulty in establishing partial knowledge of a system, and that difficulty likely hasn't changed.  I am currently considering ways to "role-play" this issue, but it would be easier to do if Aurora supported this.  

Kurt
 

Offline ShadoCat

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 327
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • http://www.assistsolar.com
Re: Suggestions for v5.1
« Reply #239 on: February 24, 2010, 05:40:09 PM »
I would like to see a change in naming conventions.

Instead of XXX engine or XXXcm laser where XXX changes each tech level and, thus, randomizes the placement of the tech on the list, how about: Engine - XXX or Laser, xxxcm?

I generally do a 1B population start and hunting down moving techs in the initial tech allocation can be a bit of a pain.