Suggestions for v5.1

[sloanjh]

Steve, could you possibly make the missile ablative armour more effective based on the tech researched.  Something based on the amount of internal armour that has been researched rather than directly off of the armour available for ships.  For instance at Ceramic composite having 1msp give 2 points of protection instead of 1.

This is the only area on missiles that does not get better with higher tech.  I do not think it should go up as fast as armour does.  With a cap of maybe 1msp giving 5 points of protection on the high end.  This would make a lot of design choices interesting at higher tech levels.  For instance having 2-3 points of armour makes the choice of using lasers vs gauss cannon a viable one, and also makes a difference between 10cm and 15cm weapons.  You can get more 10cm on board, but the 15cm have a much better kill chance, etc.

Brian

Seconded.

John

[Empty]

Would it be possible to make troop transports behave the same as cargo vessels and colony ships?

Ie a pooled storage in a task force?

I've just made 5 10k ton troop transports each with one transport module.
Thinking they could pick up a size 25 engineer brigade.

I thought the brigade would be split between the transports

[Commodore_Areyar]

Asteroidminers seem useless compared to placing automines.
Why not disallow normal/auto mine placement on asteroids and comets? (substrate too unstable)

+++++++++++++
also: request 2

[VariousArtist]

Asteroidminers seem useless compared to placing automines.
Why not disallow normal/auto mine placement on asteroids and comets? (substrate too unstable)

+++++++++++++
also: request 2

Veto! No useful idea to nerf the mines to improve usability of miners.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

Currently (4.91), only the colonies with population specify the status of the planetary "geological team survey". The mining colonies, even though they have been team surveyed, do not show the status. Could this be augmented please?

Already done for v5.0

Steve

[Charlie Beeler]

Ground Units:
The ability to block select battalions when making brigade HQ assignments.  Better yet, a form of cntl+click to select multiple units not concurrent in the unit list.  When assigning brigade HQ's to Div HQ's the subordinate battalions are asigned as well.

The ability to block select ground units when being assigned to embark on troop transports.  If an HQ is selected, query if all subordinates are to be embarked at the same time or not.  

The ability to move troops from drop pods back to troop bays without having to perform a combat drop.  

Charlie

[Kurt]

Steve -  

Kind of a question/suggestion:

Why does conventional ground forces (low tech armor and infantry) require trans-newtonian minerals to build?  That doesn't seem right.  Shouldn't they just require money, time, and a ground force training facility to build?

Kurt

[Baron Of Hell]

Decouple loadout definitions from classes, or at least allow multiple loadouts for a particular class.

I've got a standard "Nitro" class munitions ship.  There are 3 different loadouts I'd like it to have, depending on the mission:

1)  All AMM (for resupplying missile defense ships/PDC).
2)  All ASM (for resupplying missile FAC/Cruisers)
3)  Empty (for dead-heading back after dropping missiles off at a colony)

Similarly, I might want to add some size-1 ASM (heavier warhead, more fuel) to my Anti-missile escorts' magazine according to the mission.

At present, reloading to these loadouts can't be automated, because the loadout is bound to the class definition, not the ship or the role.

So the idea is to create an extra layer of indirection between the class and the loadout definition.  Rather than binding the class to "200 Sidewinder and 25 Harpoon" and having that be the loadout for all ships, at the class level you would be allowed to define multiple loadouts, giving each one a name (in the same way missile series have names).  Individual ships could then be set to use the loadout that's most suited to their particular mission.  That way one could have both ASM and AMM colliers in the same TG and a simple "replenish ordnance from colony" order would fill them both correctly.

John

I would like to to piggy back on this suggestion since my idea is similar. I have multiple ships of the same class that I wish to have different default loadouts.   John's idea would work fine for me and is more robust than what I had in mind.

I think you should just use the AMMO MNGT button on the individual ship screen to also define the default ordnance. It could act as a override if you also have the default ordnance defined on the class screen.  Maybe just add a checkbox to the AMMO MNGT window that says something like "use as default load for TG load order".

I can clearly see why you would want this set on the class screen but I think a option for individual ships is also needed.

[sloanjh]

Have the turret tracking speed be additive to the ship's tracking speed, not a replacement.

The following scenario has been bugging me for a long time, and the solution just clicked in:  Let's say I've got a ship with a speed of 10,000 and my fire-control speed and turret speed are both 4,000.  If I want to have a laser mount with a tracking speed of 12,000 (let's say I know that's an enemy's standard speed), then I need to pay for a 30% turret (3x4,000) to mount it in, of which only the last 5% does me any good - the first 25% goes to matching the ship's speed.  If the turret speed added to the ship speed, however, then I'd only have to design a 5% turret, since I would only need the 2,000 extra speed between 12,000 and 10,000.

For the case of ship speeds that are slower than the fire-control speed, I would only add turret speed to the ship speed, not to the fire control speed.  So a 4,000 turret on a 2,000 ship with 4,000 fire-control speed would result in a tracking speed of 6,000 rather than 8,000.  This is because the fire control speed effect is intended as a floor for tracking speed in the case of fixed mounts on slow ships.

I realize you might not want to do this for balance issues, which is fine, but I like the idea of giving an incentive to build fast escorts even if they're equipped with turrets.  The thing that triggered this was a thread about using fighters and GB in an anti-missile role - the turret mass penalty disproportionately hits small, fast craft because they have to "waste" a lot of mass getting the turrets' tracking speed up to their own speed.  This makes the fire-control bonus that fighters get a lot less effective, since the weapons often won't be able to match the tracking speed of a fighter fire-control.

John

[Charlie Beeler]

Have the turret tracking speed be additive to the ship's tracking speed, not a replacement.

The following scenario has been bugging me for a long time, and the solution just clicked in:  Let's say I've got a ship with a speed of 10,000 and my fire-control speed and turret speed are both 4,000.  If I want to have a laser mount with a tracking speed of 12,000 (let's say I know that's an enemy's standard speed), then I need to pay for a 30% turret (3x4,000) to mount it in, of which only the last 5% does me any good - the first 25% goes to matching the ship's speed.  If the turret speed added to the ship speed, however, then I'd only have to design a 5% turret, since I would only need the 2,000 extra speed between 12,000 and 10,000.

For the case of ship speeds that are slower than the fire-control speed, I would only add turret speed to the ship speed, not to the fire control speed.  So a 4,000 turret on a 2,000 ship with 4,000 fire-control speed would result in a tracking speed of 6,000 rather than 8,000.  This is because the fire control speed effect is intended as a floor for tracking speed in the case of fixed mounts on slow ships.

I realize you might not want to do this for balance issues, which is fine, but I like the idea of giving an incentive to build fast escorts even if they're equipped with turrets.  The thing that triggered this was a thread about using fighters and GB in an anti-missile role - the turret mass penalty disproportionately hits small, fast craft because they have to "waste" a lot of mass getting the turrets' tracking speed up to their own speed.  This makes the fire-control bonus that fighters get a lot less effective, since the weapons often won't be able to match the tracking speed of a fighter fire-control.

John

A simpler solution, that I've advocated in the past, is changing the turret tracking speed for each tech level to match the 4x fire control speed for the same tech level.  And adjust the research costs to match the same level of fire control.  With offensive missiles speeds regularly being in the 24k/kps to 32k/kps range starting turret tracking is woofully slow before the additional gear mass for faster turrets.  

This was part of the proposal last year for reducing the sizes of gauss cannons that let to CIWS being added instead.  

Personally I don't think this would segnificantly unbalance the game. Instead it makes turrets a little more viable.

[Yonder]

I would like it if there was a branch of research that increased public health in order to raise the useful time of your officers, scientists, and administrators. It doesn't seem right that 200 years after I start people are still retiring or dying in their 80s.

I would also like a research branch to make maintenance facilities more effective, and automation technologies to lower crew requirements. It seems like those are the only part of ship design that you can't improve.

My other suggestion is on the environmental front. Right now the only way to affect the temperature is with Greenhouse or Anti-Greenhouse gases. If we could make large orbital constructs to either block a portion of the sun's rays, or large orbital mirrors to focus more light on the planet, that would be cool.

This should be very costly and time intensive, as well as being very vulnerable to an enemy, but it would be cool to have the option.

PS: I really like the idea of turret fire control adding to ship speed, I've thought it was odd that it can't myself. I am guessing that the reason it doesn't work that way now is that, for example, a ship with four turrets wouldn't be able to always rotate in such a way that it helps all of its turrets at once. However if a fighter or corvette had one turret on its nose that would obviously do nothing but help, and even two turrets would probably never conflict. What if you added the ship's speed divided by the number of turrets? So a ship that moved 4000 km/s with two turrets with a 6000 km/s track speed would instead have an 8000 km/s effective track speed. Is that too complicated?

Hmm, although if a ship had a turreted weapon and a non-turreted weapon it would make sense that none of the ship's maneuverability would be helping the turret, it would almost all go towards lining up the fixed weaponry.

[Commodore_Areyar]

Speed could only ever apply a tracking bonus to one target, by keeping it in the most advantageous arc of fire for the tracking turrets.

So if a ship with 3 targeting systems (with linked weapons) uses them for two different targets,
either the player needs to select which target the pilot/helmsman needs to focus on
and/or have the game add the ship speed bonus to the fastest target by default.

I thought the current system odd at first, but then realized that a ship with turrets will likely use it's maneuvring to avoid fire more than tracking.
Also turrets are expected to have dedicated gunners, while forward facing weaponry usually is under the control of the guy also in control of the helm.

Turrets could be placed under pilot control, but then they would likely be restricted to a forward firing arc, which negates most of the turret freedom.

[Yonder]

I thought the current system odd at first, but then realized that a ship with turrets will likely use it's maneuvring to avoid fire more than tracking.

But a ship without turrets uses it's speed bonus both to avoid being hit and to help hit the enemy.

It would be interesting if the speed could only be used to increase one or the other, with a player chosen level of "Evasion" to "Aggression" determining the portion used for defense of offense. This could be affected by the skill of the crew or the commander as well.

That'd probably be way too much micromanaging, but it's interesting to think about.

[Father Tim]

I would like it if there was a branch of research that increased public health in order to raise the useful time of your officers, scientists, and administrators. It doesn't seem right that 200 years after I start people are still retiring or dying in their 80s.

There was discussion a few versions back about varying 'longevity' for alien races.  I think I prefer this idea of a tech line rather than the old idea of a box on the Ctrl-F2 'Race Details' window.

[Kurt]

I would like it if there was a branch of research that increased public health in order to raise the useful time of your officers, scientists, and administrators. It doesn't seem right that 200 years after I start people are still retiring or dying in their 80s.

I would also like a research branch to make maintenance facilities more effective, and automation technologies to lower crew requirements. It seems like those are the only part of ship design that you can't improve.

My other suggestion is on the environmental front. Right now the only way to affect the temperature is with Greenhouse or Anti-Greenhouse gases. If we could make large orbital constructs to either block a portion of the sun's rays, or large orbital mirrors to focus more light on the planet, that would be cool.

This should be very costly and time intensive, as well as being very vulnerable to an enemy, but it would be cool to have the option.

PS: I really like the idea of turret fire control adding to ship speed, I've thought it was odd that it can't myself. I am guessing that the reason it doesn't work that way now is that, for example, a ship with four turrets wouldn't be able to always rotate in such a way that it helps all of its turrets at once. However if a fighter or corvette had one turret on its nose that would obviously do nothing but help, and even two turrets would probably never conflict. What if you added the ship's speed divided by the number of turrets? So a ship that moved 4000 km/s with two turrets with a 6000 km/s track speed would instead have an 8000 km/s effective track speed. Is that too complicated?

Hmm, although if a ship had a turreted weapon and a non-turreted weapon it would make sense that none of the ship's maneuverability would be helping the turret, it would almost all go towards lining up the fixed weaponry.

Seconded.  Although I don't really have an opinion on the turret issue at the current time, I like, and have suggested, some of the other things in the past.  

Kurt