Suggestions for v5.1

[Father Tim]

Or an even more extreme possibility is to allow fractional values in the design of most ship-borne systems - similar to missile design.  So for active sensors, you'd specify a (decimal) resolution and a (decimal) size in HS, and get a unique system.  Similarly for engines - you'd specify a power level (commercial/military/GB/Drone/Fighter) and a size.  I accidently made a 0.75 HS missile in my last game - why not allow 0.75 HS launchers so you could pack 4/3 as many of them into your point defense?

One difficulty I see would be the damage allocation model - you'd probably want some sort of probablistic interpretation of fractional HTK.  Another difficulty would be in cargo holds - I would want to be able to specify picking up only an integral number of installations if I had a ship with a weird-capacity hold.

John

I'm always in favour of finer granularity in Aurora.  If I had my way, 99.98% of the game would be entering decimal values in boxes.  As for Damage Allocation, simply keep the current 0 HTK system* and for systems larger than 1 HTK round down all to the nearest integer (in mathematical terms, modulo 1).

*Currently, a 0 HTK component takes up one space on the DAC, is destroyed by even a single point of damage, but does not 'absorb' that point of damage, so it then goes on to destroy something else.

[Father Tim]

I believe he was talking about having a tech that allows you to reduce the number of ships that can accompany the jump ship in order to get a further reduction in drive size.

afaik you can get:
squadron size 1 jump drives (military and commercial I think)
squadron size 2 jump drives (commercial)
squadron size 3 and up jump drives (military and commercial)

Really?  Because if that's true then there's almost no reason to ever build a commercial drive bigger than SqSz 2.  Oh, I suppose some lunatic will want to hurl multiple commercial-engined ships into a combat where they'll be deaf, dumb, and blind for 12 hours, but the rest of us will simply take the extra few minutes to move multiple ships through a jump point.

[Charlie Beeler]

I don't believe that squadron size 2 is available for either military or commercial jump drives.  But Self only (squadron size 1) are for drives from 1hs to just below the lowest researched minimum jump drive size.  

As far as I know this was part of the v4.8 release.

[Beersatron]

I don't believe that squadron size 2 is available for either military or commercial jump drives.  But Self only (squadron size 1) are for drives from 1hs to just below the lowest researched minimum jump drive size.  

As far as I know this was part of the v4.8 release.

Pretty sure that in my current game (don't have it on this PC) I have a 60k Ton JD that was created with squadron size 3 technology but that gets equated to squadron size 2 because it is a commercial design.

[Charlie Beeler]

I don't believe that squadron size 2 is available for either military or commercial jump drives.  But Self only (squadron size 1) are for drives from 1hs to just below the lowest researched minimum jump drive size.  

As far as I know this was part of the v4.8 release.

Pretty sure that in my current game (don't have it on this PC) I have a 60k Ton JD that was created with squadron size 3 technology but that gets equated to squadron size 2 because it is a commercial design.

I just reviewed the jump engine design.  In actual function I can't say one way or the other.

[Rathos]

I'd like to suggest that the larger missile launchers have to be researched.

Maybe make 1-25 low tech, and 25-50 cost 1000 each, then 50-100 cost 2000 each.

Also take launcher max size up to 1000, in increments of 50 between 100-500 (i.e. 150, 200, 250, 300, 350, etc.) and 100 between 500-1000 (i.e. 600, 700, 800, 900, 1000) 1000 size box launchers shooting ship sized torpedoes to blow up entire planets/fleets is fun. (I made a 1000 size MIRV that broke up into thousands of small deadly dart missiles with their own targeting software)

Also how about higher jump drive efficiencies? i.e. 30, 35, 40, 45, 50 etc. Doubling the RP cost though would make it go too high though, so maybe stick with a 10% increase in the cost? Max jump drive already costs a lot so it would still take a while to research.

Also, maybe you could play a game with some giant big ships. There are some problems with them (Sensor Errors, Fleet Contact Errors, Maintenance error overflows, extremely long time to load fire-control systems (Because of the sheer number of weapon systems. Maybe once the list gets so large group the weapons into tens so each weapon represents 10 of the guns on board?)

Also a larger fuel tanks/crew quarters/engineering spaces would be nice. (156 thousand engineering spaces on my 50 million ton super monitor took a lot of x100 clicking...only to throw a maintenance error every cycle that results in no maintenance failures! Might as well not put any on there!)

Of course you might of already fixed this for 4.9...I just upgraded and it will take some time to rebuild. (In fact I never managed to actually build a ship larger than 6 million tons, the 50 million monitor was fast OBed in to test it out on my playground game    )


Edit: Also, can we have a button to add a shipping line that isn't Spacemaster, that costs an amount of wealth (Maybe 5-10% of your total wealth?)

[mrwigggles]

An optional system beep when a time increment is over.

[Father Tim]

Also a larger fuel tanks/crew quarters/engineering spaces would be nice. (156 thousand engineering spaces on my 50 million ton super monitor took a lot of x100 clicking...only to throw a maintenance error every cycle that results in no maintenance failures! Might as well not put any on there!)

You're unlikely to get larger versions, as that would take a lot of programming time for a minor return of fun, but I'm sure Steve would be willing to whip up a x1000, and maybe even a x10,000 button, on the F5 Unit design screen.

[sloanjh]

Also a larger fuel tanks/crew quarters/engineering spaces would be nice. (156 thousand engineering spaces on my 50 million ton super monitor took a lot of x100 clicking...only to throw a maintenance error every cycle that results in no maintenance failures! Might as well not put any on there!)

You're unlikely to get larger versions, as that would take a lot of programming time for a minor return of fun, but I'm sure Steve would be willing to whip up a x1000, and maybe even a x10,000 button, on the F5 Unit design screen.

I have a suspicion that the DAC (Damage Allocation Table) might break if there were 10s of thousands of components - it depends on which variable types Steve is using..  The damage control screen might have problems too - I don't remember if you get 1000 entries for 1000 broken components of the same type....

John

[Rathos]

Also a larger fuel tanks/crew quarters/engineering spaces would be nice. (156 thousand engineering spaces on my 50 million ton super monitor took a lot of x100 clicking...only to throw a maintenance error every cycle that results in no maintenance failures! Might as well not put any on there!)

You're unlikely to get larger versions, as that would take a lot of programming time for a minor return of fun, but I'm sure Steve would be willing to whip up a x1000, and maybe even a x10,000 button, on the F5 Unit design screen.

I don't see how copying the current tech entries from the database, copying them at the bottom, changing the modifier to a higher number is a lot of programming.

There are already multiple ones for smaller systems. Also armored fuel bunkers.

A few minutes in Access whipped me up the following:

Code: [Select]

ID Name CategoryID RaceID TechTypeID ReplicatingTech NoTechScan RuinOnly Prerequisite1 Prerequisite2 StartingSystem ConventionalSystem Dev AdditionalInfo AdditionalInfo2 AdditionalInfo3 AdditionalInfo4 TechDescription
50 Jump Drive Efficiency 100 1 0 8 False False False 1219 0 False False 4000000 100 0 0 Jump engines with higher levels of jump drive efficiency will permit larger ships to jump than lower efficiency engines of the same size
51 Jump Drive Efficiency 1000 1 0 8 False False False 1219 0 False False 10000000 1000 0 0 Jump engines with higher levels of jump drive efficiency will permit larger ships to jump than lower efficiency engines of the same size
52 Jump Drive Efficiency 150 1 0 8 False False False 1219 0 False False 6000000 150 0 0 Jump engines with higher levels of jump drive efficiency will permit larger ships to jump than lower efficiency engines of the same size
53 Jump Drive Efficiency 200 1 0 8 False False False 1219 0 False False 8000000 200 0 0 Jump engines with higher levels of jump drive efficiency will permit larger ships to jump than lower efficiency engines of the same size
54 Jump Drive Efficiency 250 1 0 8 False False False 1219 0 False False 10000000 250 0 0 Jump engines with higher levels of jump drive efficiency will permit larger ships to jump than lower efficiency engines of the same size
55 Jump Drive Efficiency 300 1 0 8 False False False 1219 0 False False 10000000 300 0 0 Jump engines with higher levels of jump drive efficiency will permit larger ships to jump than lower efficiency engines of the same size
56 Jump Drive Efficiency 50 1 0 8 False False False 1219 0 False False 2000000 50 0 0 Jump engines with higher levels of jump drive efficiency will permit larger ships to jump than lower efficiency engines of the same size
58 Missile Launcher Size 1000 1 0 10 False False False 0 0 False False 12500 1000 2000 0 The maximum size of missile a launcher with this technology can fire
59 Missile Launcher Size 10000 1 0 10 False False False 0 0 False False 1000000 10000 20000 0 The maximum size of missile a launcher with this technology can fire
60 Missile Launcher Size 100000 1 0 10 False False False 0 0 False False 10000000 100000 200000 0 The maximum size of missile a launcher with this technology can fire
61 Missile Launcher Size 150 1 0 10 False False False 0 0 False False 5000 150 300 0 The maximum size of missile a launcher with this technology can fire
62 Missile Launcher Size 200 1 0 10 False False False 0 0 False False 5000 200 400 0 The maximum size of missile a launcher with this technology can fire
63 Missile Launcher Size 2000 1 0 10 False False False 0 0 False False 25000 2000 4000 0 The maximum size of missile a launcher with this technology can fire
65 Missile Launcher Size 250 1 0 10 False False False 0 0 False False 5000 250 500 0 The maximum size of missile a launcher with this technology can fire
66 Missile Launcher Size 300 1 0 10 False False False 0 0 False False 5000 300 600 0 The maximum size of missile a launcher with this technology can fire
67 Missile Launcher Size 3000 1 0 10 False False False 0 0 False False 50000 3000 6000 0 The maximum size of missile a launcher with this technology can fire
68 Missile Launcher Size 350 1 0 10 False False False 0 0 False False 5000 350 700 0 The maximum size of missile a launcher with this technology can fire
69 Missile Launcher Size 400 1 0 10 False False False 0 0 False False 5000 400 800 0 The maximum size of missile a launcher with this technology can fire
70 Missile Launcher Size 4000 1 0 10 False False False 0 0 False False 100000 4000 8000 0 The maximum size of missile a launcher with this technology can fire
71 Missile Launcher Size 450 1 0 10 False False False 0 0 False False 5000 450 900 0 The maximum size of missile a launcher with this technology can fire
73 Missile Launcher Size 500 1 0 10 False False False 0 0 False False 7500 500 1000 0 The maximum size of missile a launcher with this technology can fire
74 Missile Launcher Size 5000 1 0 10 False False False 0 0 False False 100000 5000 10000 0 The maximum size of missile a launcher with this technology can fire
80 Expanded Cargo Hold 31 0 80 False False False 0 0 True True 200 50000 0 0 Allows ship to transport 50000 cargo points. 1 ton of minerals = 2.5 CP, Infrastructure = 2500 CP, Factory or Mine = 25,000 CP
81 Expanded Crew Quarters 11 0 99 False True False 0 0 True True 1000 2500 0 0 Provides life support for up to 2500 crew. A ship design must always include sufficient life support for the crew
82 Expanded Fuel Storage 11 0 94 False True False 0 0 True True 1000 500000 0 0 Fuel storage for ships. Each Fuel Storage module can hold 500,000 litres of fuel.
83 Expanded Engineering Section 11 0 66 False True False 0 0 True True 0 500 0 0 0 Extra large Engineering Space. Reduces chance of failure and adds maintenance supply capacity
I could of probably did it in seconds if I had known what I was doing.

The real programing problem I think would be the overflow errors relating to extremely large ships.  Also the number of components on them might cause problems with the DAC and also with fire-control  list like sloanjh said. To minimize the amount of components on the ship while maintaining how much they add is the goal of the larger sections. Thousands of entries to either would make them take forever to load right now (It already takes 30-40 seconds to load the North Carolina's fire control and it only has about 1000 weapons). The damage control screen, thankfully lumps the same components into one entry I.E. x11 Ion engine E9s or 2x PewPewlasers or 1x Big missile launcher of doom.

Also, who are you to say what is a minor bit of fun? I realize I might be in the minority here, but I know at least a couple other people who enjoy designing large warships. One of most fun things for me to do is to try and design a giant warship and then build it. The sense of accomplishment getting everything together to build a North Carolina Missile Cruiser with nothing but the resources of Sol was quite fun. Ditto when the 750 thousand ton warship flew into Washington to destroy the alien invaders, and it was terribly sad to see the ship broken up for scrap after not having enough maintenance facilities to overhaul it as its maintenance clock ran up.

All this is moot anyway, Steve will decide what Steve wants to add in the end. I'm just thankful I can add a few things *I* enjoy to my database and have them work relatively well.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

I would once again remind everyone that modding the DB is a bad idea as it is not always obvious what is going on. Because this is a 1-person project I haven't followed many of the conventions that would be required for a multi-person project, which is a polite way of saying I sometimes hack something out quickly. I have extensive code comments to remind me about this but there is no way for anyone else to read these. Changing anything in the DB, or adding/deleting information without the checks provided by the GUI, runs the risk of breaking the program or causing serious bugs. The reason the DB is passworded is so that when someone reports a bug I don't have to be concerned that the bug is caused by someone corrupting the database, in which case I could spend weeks looking for a bug I will never reproduce. If you do report a bug and you have modded the DB, you will need to tell me everything you have changed in the DB.

I would urge those people who do have the password not to pass it on, otherwise I am going to have to start regularly changing it. I do give out the password to players with a lot of experience who need to change something that we have discussed to fix a specific problem.

Steve

[sloanjh]

A more concrete version of the suggestions for dealing with Marine companies.  The problem being solved is that I can't attach even a single battalion's worth of Marine companies (5 of them) to a brigade HQ, since the HQ's attachment limit doesn't care about unit size.

1)  Introduce a company-sized unit: "Marine Battalion HQ" (or maybe just "Battalion HQ"), that's size-1, defense 0.5, cost 20, and can attach 4 company-sized units.
2)  Change the combat stats of Marine companies to be 1/4 (vice 1/5) those of a Marine battalion: 2.5 attack and defense, and the cost to 40 BP.
3)  (Possibly) Disallow placing officers in command of companies (it doesn't make a lot of sense to have a field-grade officer leading a company).

So this gives 4 Marine companies plus an HQ stats of attack 10, defense 10.5, and cost 180, in comparison to 10/10/180 for a Marine battalion.  I tried to pick the numbers by looking at your brigade and division HQ.  I originally was going to make the HQ cost 60 (and the companies 30) since your brigade HQ tend to be more expensive than batallions, but figured you'd want 5 individual companies to cost more than a battalion, since it would have stats 25% larger.  The 10.5 in total defense was to make the numbers come out even - I don't think it's harmful because I suspect that a battalion is stronger fighting as a single unit than broken up into individual units (which can be picked off one at a time).

If the first two changes are put in place, then I can group my Marine companies under a battalion HQ, which will be attachable to Brigade HQ just like any other battalion.

John

[Litcube]

Hi!

Going through the tutorial, I added a Nuclear Engine Research Project Design 10 times, because I didn't know that there was no confirmation when hitting "create".  My suggestion is to add some sort of confirmation when creating a research project (sound, message box, etc.)

[Erik L]

Rename the energy torpedo item "Warhead strength" to "Energy Warhead Strength" or something. I was trying to figure out why my missile warheads were under Energy Weapons.

[Rathos]

Hi!

Going through the tutorial, I added a Nuclear Engine Research Project Design 10 times, because I didn't know that there was no confirmation when hitting "create".  My suggestion is to add some sort of confirmation when creating a research project (sound, message box, etc.)

Ditto the first time I designed something, although I only tried 4 times.