Author Topic: Change Log for 6.00 discussion  (Read 50006 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline telegraph

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • t
  • Posts: 117
Re: Change Log for 6.00 discussion
« Reply #255 on: September 10, 2012, 04:21:22 AM »
Having Space Stations that can self maintain and upgrade components would be a start before that.

I still do not see space stations as a viable option at this stage, compared to a planetary military outpost.

Babylon was orbiting some husky planet. I think you can offset the maintenance failures on a big station by having enough of small maintenance vessels (maintenance  facility) with it.

Upgrade of the components would be really nice though. If some components are so modular that we can pre-construct them then why can't we take one out and add another one. Maybe we could have some limited shipyard-capable module for that(rather slow "refit to" and "repair" capability for self and smaller vessels. working only with pre-constructed components that needs to be shipped from somewhere else)? 


This rises additional issues though, like transporting of components and resources that would be good to outsource to civvies and reasonably automate(currently conditional orders are rather lacking in versatility) military freighters to do it.
 

Offline UnLimiTeD

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • U
  • Posts: 1108
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: Change Log for 6.00 discussion
« Reply #256 on: September 11, 2012, 08:12:45 AM »
Well, if you require a planet or asteroid for the station anyways, which is convenient because that's whats currently coded, the main thing for space stations seems to be a module system, where you can switch out modules.
Near a planet, a station might actually have fabrications to switch that out.
I would really like that, it might even allow to install a weapons module on a civilian freighter at a massive premium in mass, thereby relegating maintenance only to those weapon systems, though that obviously won't turn it into a warship.
Then, a Space station could just be switch like PDC, that's just -50% maintenance clock progression, +50% crew habitation needs, or some such, and it can't have an engine; or rather, I'd prefer it not being able to have a topspeed over a given number, say, 25 kms.
After all, a TN-"Maneuvering Thruster" might not be too bad of an idea.
After two decades, however, the frame of the station would still age, even though the modules were kept fresh; One could however deliver a new frame to incorporate those modules, given that that will be significantly lighter.


Though I personally still lack an understanding for the appeal of such large targets.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2012, 08:18:02 AM by UnLimiTeD »
 

Offline TheDeadlyShoe

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1264
  • Thanked: 58 times
  • Dance Commander
Re: Change Log for 6.00 discussion
« Reply #257 on: September 11, 2012, 10:57:02 AM »
You can SM mode revamp station designs if you want, currently.  Or RP several independent modules orbiting a planet as a single massive station.  (IE, Habitats, Defence Systems, etc. as different ships) That kind of makes sense, anyway. 
 

Offline telegraph

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • t
  • Posts: 117
Re: Change Log for 6.00 discussion
« Reply #258 on: September 11, 2012, 12:11:15 PM »
Well, the idea was not only about modularity.
Space station would not only require some way to upgrade it (actually upgrade is an extra optional feature).  Station would need crew rotation mechanism, like space busses.

We can keep the overhaul requirement though. With enough engeneering(there was a lot in Babylon 5) maintanence failures can be kept at bay for decades. And once in a lifetime a great shipyard would be towed to the station to make capital repairs and an overhaul(with increased overhaul speed).

The idea about hull aging is nice. Perhaps it would be better to have a more viewable aging. I propose following:
There are small meteors in space. The bigger your ship is - the bigger is the probability that it will be hit by one. i.e. great battleship will be hit about once a month, FAC - once a year, Fighter - almost never.
A hit would result in 1 point of damage with the normal damage rules. Active shields(any) would prevent the hit, but shields require fuel.
This will be a good change because it will force player to put more armor on larger ships, even if those are not about to fight. Armor can still be repaired at a shipyard.


The point of the space station stuff is not just a shiny new super-expensive capital ship with no drives. I see it as a long-range diplomacy, espionage and trade outpost. I think Aurora diplomacy should be more rich. There should be more options and more AI surprises about it.

First of all I think that races need to be weary not only of your presence in their systems, but also in systems around their systems. They should also be aware of this - settling too close to your neighbours is a sure way to damage the relationships.

Inter-racial trade should bring more benefits then just an ocasional infrastructure(which is not an issue at the time you will be able to build a Babylon-type station) or some halved tax revenues. Espionage info, advanced technology, info on third races, increased population per capita income, decreased unrest... as long as trade flows...

How do you trade then? civilian freighters do not like to move goods more then  4 jumps away, while your neighbours may not be happy to see your colonies right next to theirs. My answer would be - through space trade hubs - large stations which would not aggravate neighbors, but allow for trade logistics.

I think domestic civilian trade should also be improved. If your planet does not have large deposits of ore any more it does not mean there are no materials left at all. There are small private mines, recycling, private minerals stored... I think those should be available for sale. In unlimited quantities but at progressive prices. The more you buy - the higher price climbs. Interracial civilian trade and periods of not purchasing these goods from the market should bring the prices down.

That is a considerable coding effort, but I think it would be worth it.

An added bonus of the station would be diplomacy and espionage. I think a race should be able to stick several teams on a station, be it own station or not-very-hostile station. those teams would improve relationships with any race that have put their teams on that station;and provide intelligence about any race that is either trading through this station or put some teams on it. I think it would be good additional bonus to regular team use and a good countermeasure to the increased hostilities due to squalor.
 

Offline ardem

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • a
  • Posts: 814
  • Thanked: 44 times
Re: Change Log for 6.00 discussion
« Reply #259 on: September 11, 2012, 08:23:57 PM »
Diplomacy needs a major overhaul, I would much prefer to have seen some big AI improvements and diplomacy improvements then ship design features. Don't get me wrong Steve does a great job with those improvements, but the game is very one dimensional.

Which is 'blow crap up' I tried to be friends with aliens, but they don't understand personal space. Or they feel that they can conquer me without doing any real recon, such as. I am superior in tech then them and a small conflict over a colony that I already had in my system will not benefit them in the long run.

These type of things are real immersion breakers. I am hoping Steve stop working on the mechanic of space craft and focuses on some real AI or diplomacy changes in the next version. Yeah fuzzy logic sucks to code but even some minor AI improvements may go a huge way to include those WOW! moments. (Wow as in surprise not World of Warcraft)

Example of treaties should be easy enough to code, such as;

The non-movement in a a system already inhabited by a colony of the opposing treaty race with military ships.
The non-ability to create a colony in the opposing treaty system if they already have a colony
The non-ability to create a colony on the same planet ( a more trusting option )
The share map treaty (not just new systems)
The request military aid to 'said' system treaty.

These should be simple if then type coding ability to enhance Cooperative AI.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2012, 08:33:03 PM by ardem »
 

Offline telegraph

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • t
  • Posts: 117
Re: Change Log for 6.00 discussion
« Reply #260 on: September 12, 2012, 01:10:57 AM »
Diplomacy improvements would be really nice. It would be good if space races had their agendas and priorities and strategic plans and if wars were fought over some goals, not just to blast an enemy into space, but to actually gain/protect/secure something.
 

Offline xeryon

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 581
Re: Change Log for 6.00 discussion
« Reply #261 on: September 12, 2012, 06:46:15 AM »
These diplomacy things you speak of: that is what multi-human controlled factions are for.
 

Offline Bgreman

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 213
  • Thanked: 2 times
Re: Change Log for 6.00 discussion
« Reply #262 on: September 12, 2012, 11:15:58 AM »
That doesn't mean it wouldn't be worthwhile to make NPRs a little smarter and diplomacy a little deeper.
 

Offline xeryon

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 581
Re: Change Log for 6.00 discussion
« Reply #263 on: September 12, 2012, 02:21:11 PM »
I would be pleased with the implementation of sovereign space.  Friendly factions avoid it unless they request a right of passage agreement.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11729
  • Thanked: 20681 times
Re: Change Log for 6.00 discussion
« Reply #264 on: September 12, 2012, 03:12:05 PM »
I will take a look at diplomacy at some point as I haven't touched it in years. Not for v6.00 though. My focus at the moment is on testing and getting the new version out.

Steve
 

Offline Charlie Beeler

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1381
  • Thanked: 3 times
Re: Change Log for 6.00 discussion
« Reply #265 on: September 18, 2012, 09:30:21 AM »
Steve, would you post a quick table for the power/fuel consumption modifier tech levels?  I'm working on converting my analysis workbook, since v6 isn't out yet I don't have the database to pull an extract from.  With this data I can update my ship engine and missile builder sheets.

Thanks
Charlie
Amateurs study tactics, Professionals study logistics - paraphrase attributed to Gen Omar Bradley
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11729
  • Thanked: 20681 times
Re: Change Log for 6.00 discussion
« Reply #266 on: September 18, 2012, 01:52:45 PM »
Steve, would you post a quick table for the power/fuel consumption modifier tech levels?  I'm working on converting my analysis workbook, since v6 isn't out yet I don't have the database to pull an extract from.  With this data I can update my ship engine and missile builder sheets.

Thanks
Charlie

Power is the same as now. Fuel is as follows:

Fuel Consumption: 1.0 Litres per Engine Power Hour
Fuel Consumption: 0.9 Litres per Engine Power Hour
Fuel Consumption: 0.8 Litres per Engine Power Hour
Fuel Consumption: 0.7 Litres per Engine Power Hour
Fuel Consumption: 0.6 Litres per Engine Power Hour
Fuel Consumption: 0.5 Litres per Engine Power Hour
Fuel Consumption: 0.4 Litres per Engine Power Hour
Fuel Consumption: 0.3 Litres per Engine Power Hour
Fuel Consumption: 0.25 Litres per Engine Power Hour
Fuel Consumption: 0.2 Litres per Engine Power Hour
Fuel Consumption: 0.16 Litres per Engine Power Hour
Fuel Consumption: 0.125 Litres per Engine Power Hour
Fuel Consumption: 0.1 Litres per Engine Power Hour

The various fuel consumption formulae are in the patch notes thread.

Steve
 

Offline Charlie Beeler

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1381
  • Thanked: 3 times
Re: Change Log for 6.00 discussion
« Reply #267 on: September 18, 2012, 01:57:23 PM »
I was actually asking for this:

"Power / Fuel Consumption Modifiers: There are two new tech lines to research, called Max Engine Power Modifier and Min Engine Power Modifier"

I'm really just looking for the break points.

Charlie
Amateurs study tactics, Professionals study logistics - paraphrase attributed to Gen Omar Bradley
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11729
  • Thanked: 20681 times
Re: Change Log for 6.00 discussion
« Reply #268 on: September 18, 2012, 01:59:32 PM »
I was actually asking for this:

"Power / Fuel Consumption Modifiers: There are two new tech lines to research, called Max Engine Power Modifier and Min Engine Power Modifier"

I'm really just looking for the break points.

Charlie

Ah OK

Maximum Engine Power Modifier x1
Maximum Engine Power Modifier x1.25
Maximum Engine Power Modifier x1.5
Maximum Engine Power Modifier x1.75
Maximum Engine Power Modifier x2
Maximum Engine Power Modifier x2.5
Maximum Engine Power Modifier x3

Minimum Engine Power Modifier x0.5
Minimum Engine Power Modifier x0.4
Minimum Engine Power Modifier x0.3
Minimum Engine Power Modifier x0.25
Minimum Engine Power Modifier x0.2
Minimum Engine Power Modifier x0.15
Minimum Engine Power Modifier x0.1

Steve
 

Offline Charlie Beeler

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1381
  • Thanked: 3 times
Re: Change Log for 6.00 discussion
« Reply #269 on: September 18, 2012, 02:59:02 PM »
Thank You Sir,  Exactly what I was looking for.
Amateurs study tactics, Professionals study logistics - paraphrase attributed to Gen Omar Bradley