Official Suggestion Thread for 5.20 or later

[sloanjh]

Add the ability to control whether or not prefab components are used when starting construction of a new ship.

I've started pre-fabing engines for my naval construction, since that's typically about 1/2 the build time.  I just got a new engine tech, so I'm launching a big wave of building.  I've got 4 slipways tooled up for a 30kton BB (40 engines each), and I've got a ton of SY/slipways tooled up for various 1kton corvettes (2 engines each).  What I'm trying to do is to lay down a new BB every time I reach 40 engines stockpiled.  The problem is that my 1st wave of corvettes are beginning to roll off the lines, and every time I lay down a 2nd-wave corvette it eats two of the engines that I'm trying to stockpile for the next BB.  What I'd like is the ability to say "Lay down this corvette without using any stockpiled components" - that would allow me to save my engines for the BBs.

John

[jseah]

You could combine it with the "package" suggestion I gave earlier. 

The package would only result in actual components when it's finished, so as long as you click "build BB" before you click "build corvette" then there's no problem. 

A more controlled way would be to have packages of components be listed as "Wyrm class Escort Frigate Components x1" instead of all the individual components.  That way, the components can only be used for that design (and shipyards will preferably use packages rather than loose components). 
And when you disassemble the package, that breaks it up into the individual components for other ships to use. 

[Ziusudra]

The Task Force dropdown, what exactly does that do?

It is how you set what TF the current TG is in. If it were changed to limit the TG dropdown, some other way to set the TF for the TG would need to be added.

I think a better solution would be to add a button to the TF (Ctrl+F4) window that opens the TG window for the selected TG. That window already shows only the TG in the current TF.

Edit: Although, proper use of the Naval Org tab on the TG window can already provide an easier way to find each TG.

[sloanjh]

It is how you set what TF the current TG is in. If it were changed to limit the TG dropdown, some other way to set the TF for the TG would need to be added.

I think a better solution would be to add a button to the TF (Ctrl+F4) window that opens the TG window for the selected TG. That window already shows only the TG in the current TF.

Edit: Although, proper use of the Naval Org tab on the TG window can already provide an easier way to find each TG.

This is what it used to do.  Ever since the introduction of the Naval Org tab it's been broken (the setting you choose doesn't "stick" - to see this, change the TF of a TG, then select another TG from the drop down, then select the first TG.  You'll see that the TF setting is back to what it was).  At present, the only way that I'm aware of to get a TG into a TF is by forming it from the Naval Org tab.

John

[Ziusudra]

Strange, it's not working now.

In a previous 5.42 game I had a training TF and used that dropdown to move ships between it and the main TF without that or any problem.

I'll have to play around with it to see if I can get it to work again.

[ExChairman]

Would bee nice to bee able to send several battalions at the same time to a HQ, its abit tedious to do them one at a time...

Is there a way to place a ground chief at a planet, as a army leader... If not it should bee...

[Charlie Beeler]

I've made a detailed suggestion for 3 changes to the TechSystem's table regarding Fighter engines, turret tracking speeds and beam fire control ranges.  This is just a place holder for it in the official suggestions thread.

http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,3538.0.html

[jseah]

Actually, I would like to see engines get a slight rework.  

When designing an engine, we should also get to choose the size.  Currently getting stuck on 5HS chunks means to maintain a certain % of engine, I need to make my ships a certain multiple of that size.  

Oddly tonned ships are out of luck.  


If applied to FAC and fighter engines, would also resolve Charlier Beeler's suggestion. 

[sloanjh]

Actually, I would like to see engines get a slight rework.  

When designing an engine, we should also get to choose the size.  Currently getting stuck on 5HS chunks means to maintain a certain % of engine, I need to make my ships a certain multiple of that size.  

Oddly tonned ships are out of luck.  


If applied to FAC and fighter engines, would also resolve Charlier Beeler's suggestion. 

Seconded.

In addition, Charlie made what I thought was a VERY interesting point in his thread: do we really need the "Only 1 GB or FTR engine per ship" limitation?  It seems to me that the 10x or 100x fuel consumption rates of these engines are already pretty strong limiters in terms of not piling too many of them into a single ship, especially for fighter engines - I suspect we don't need the externally imposed limit.

Two things I think would be needed in addition:

1)  Ships docked in hangers should either not accrue training points or should burn fuel (possibly at a 25% or 50% rate to represent only being flying part of the time).  Training high-power ships should be REALLY expensive in fuel - at present it costs nothing.  The bug/exploit where training ships at in a fleet that's slower than their max speed burns fuel at a lower rate needs to be fixed too.

2)  I think tractors are overly simplistic/unbalanced.  At present, a single tractor unit can channel the power of 500 commercial engines.  I think a "power capacity rating" (and maybe  a tech line to go with it) needs to be put into tractors.

John

[Narmio]

Dual-engine fighters would be an interesting prospect.  It would make 350-500t fighters viable.  The problem is that FAC engines would probably never be used if you removed the restrictions entirely - you'd just strap five fighter engines onto an 800t gunboat that could outrun low-tech hyperdrives. Fuel use would be hilarious, though. Also inevitably some insane person is going to make a 20,000t battlecruiser using 100 fighter engines. Sure it might go through an entire gas giant worth of sorium in one flight, but it won't get hit! And that's just getting silly.

If you removed the restriction on number but kept fighter engines to or less ships only and gunboat engines on 500-1000t ships only it might be interesting. Alternatively you could up the limit to two, since dual-engine is about the most a practical design could use.

[EarthquakeDamage]

1)  Ships docked in hangers should either not accrue training points or should burn fuel (possibly at a 25% or 50% rate to represent only being flying part of the time).  Training high-power ships should be REALLY expensive in fuel - at present it costs nothing.  The bug/exploit where training ships at in a fleet that's slower than their max speed burns fuel at a lower rate needs to be fixed too.

Do you really want to make fighters unusable?  You could probably get away with GB fuel usage in training, but that extra x10 consumption from fighters is damned expensive.

2)  I think tractors are overly simplistic/unbalanced.  At present, a single tractor unit can channel the power of 500 commercial engines.  I think a "power capacity rating" (and maybe  a tech line to go with it) needs to be put into tractors.

Maybe.  You still need a large, expensive tug to tow other large ships at an appreciable speed.  Regardless, Steve seems to prefer erring on the side of complexity, but I'll ask this anyway:  How much gameplay do we really gain from the added complexity?

Dual-engine fighters would be an interesting prospect.  It would make 350-500t fighters viable.  The problem is that FAC engines would probably never be used if you removed the restrictions entirely - you'd just strap five fighter engines onto an 800t gunboat that could outrun low-tech hyperdrives. Fuel use would be hilarious, though. Also inevitably some insane person is going to make a 20,000t battlecruiser using 100 fighter engines. Sure it might go through an entire gas giant worth of sorium in one flight, but it won't get hit! And that's just getting silly.

Herp derp the counterbalance to GB/FTR speed is the fuel consumption.  Fret all you like about ZOMGlightspeedbattlecruisers, but they'll never be feasible.  Sure, you could build one for emergency use, or maybe just for the lulz, but it'd never be the bread and butter of your battle fleet.

[jseah]

Fuel use would be hilarious, though. Also inevitably some insane person is going to make a 20,000t battlecruiser using 100 fighter engines. Sure it might go through an entire gas giant worth of sorium in one flight, but it won't get hit! And that's just getting silly.

Fuel use.  Precisely that.  

100 fighter engines gobbles fuel... well, like 100 fighters.  At 7800% fuel use, 90 000 litres will give you 48 hours, on one engine.  (a current FAC design I have is 20 days at 780%)

On 100 engines, that ship sucks 4.5 million litres of fuel in two days.  Exactly how is this useful since all that engine space you saved gets stuck in fuel tanks and more?  (note: 4.5 million litres of fuel = 90 fuel tanks = 90HS)


If you want to limit ships, assing a delta-v maximum that decreases with size and increases with armour.  (bigger ships have a larger strain when the engines at the back thrust, since they presumably have a larger hull and stuff that sticks out the side will suffer more torque)
Use that for the checking against hit rate as well.  Not sure if we want to deal with acceleration but the fuel use is already too insane.  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another suggestion:

More than one engine type allowed per hull.  
The ship has to gain a window the arranges the preference of engine use wrt speed.  

If hyper is possible, hyperengines get the hyper multiplier to power.  (and likewise higher efficiency)

eg.
Cruising
1st, Fuel efficiency: Uses most efficient engines first, then progressing downwards.
2nd, Thermal emission: Ties are broken preferring lower thermals.  

Stealth
1st, Thermal emission
2nd, Fuel efficiency


Then we can do things like stick a gunboat or fighter engine on a normal military ship and never use it during cruising, but in battle there's the option to "go to flank speed" and burn more fuel.  
Would totally do that on bigger ships.  A block of high power/weight engines for just that little kick when you need it, but your strategic movement speed is much lower.  

Like using two military engines per 10 ktons, plus 10 gunboat engines which are usually not running.  When battle is engaged, go to full speed and guzzle fuel for the half an hour or so.  


Also has other things like attaching a tug boat to a FAC, and thus saving fuel for long hauls.  Cruising engine attachments.  Hyper engine attachments.  

[UnLimiTeD]

Now I really like the engine suggestion, I think I asked for that a while back as well, that must be why .
Having multiple engine types will allow for a variety of tactics.
Fighter Engines will never be feasible in big ships, so there is no risk in lifting the limitation, Gunboat Engines are more dangerous, but ultimately, they still go down in a fire if hit and are strategically not viable. Like missiles^^

As for tractors, the pure idea of a tractor beam seems pretty high tech to me. I'd vote to just replace it with transportation clamps, have a maximum size the ship can tug based on how many it has, and have Tractors as a higher level tech that also eases boarding and allows to tug multiple ships at once if you have multiple.

[Charlie Beeler]

Seconded.

In addition, Charlie made what I thought was a VERY interesting point in his thread: do we really need the "Only 1 GB or FTR engine per ship" limitation?  It seems to me that the 10x or 100x fuel consumption rates of these engines are already pretty strong limiters in terms of not piling too many of them into a single ship, especially for fighter engines - I suspect we don't need the externally imposed limit.

<snipped tractor topic>

John

As long as the fighter max hs limitation of 10 and gunboat limitation of 20 is retained it would be self limiting.  Either my suggestion of up powering fighter engines or removing the 1 only restriction will require Steve to make a coding change.  Ideally, like to see both. 

[jRides]

I like the suggestion of 'emergency power/thermal reduction/cruise control for engines. The emergency power/cruise control are already in the game (Power Efficiency -Reduction/Increase in the Power and Propulsion tech line) its just that they need to be built into the design, you can only have one or the other, and are therefore always 'on'. If they could be switched on/off at need like the Hyperdrive, then theres your engine modes (well two of them, thermal reduction I think should be a third techline).

I'm not sure just how you would go about balancing this out (military only? explosion chance increases 0.1% per day for power increase and thermal reduction?) but a military engine that gave me these three options would pretty much be standard for me once I had the tech.

Those times when you really need a fleet to be somewhere fast gives you the option of racing there on emergency power - with the caveat that theres a chance not all ships will make it as their engines fail during the journey, sometime quite spectacularly.