Change Log for 6.00 discussion

[Steve Walmsley]

Steve another query,  what are the cost modifiers for thermal reduction and hyper drives?

At the moment hyper drives aren't in 6.00. I just haven't got around to adding them back into engine design.

For thermal reduction, cost modifiers are as follows:

75% 1.25x
50% 1.5x
35% 1.75x
25% 2x
16% 2.25x
12% 2.5x
8%  2.75x
6%  3x
4%  3.25x
3%  3.5x
2%  3.75x
1%  4x

[Charlie Beeler]

At the moment hyper drives aren't in 6.00. I just haven't got around to adding them back into engine design.

For thermal reduction, cost modifiers are as follows:

75% 1.25x
50% 1.5x
35% 1.75x
25% 2x
16% 2.25x
12% 2.5x
8%  2.75x
6%  3x
4%  3.25x
3%  3.5x
2%  3.75x
1%  4x

Thank You.  Just to confirm, base engine cost is engine output.  At the very least that is what has worked when I reverse engineer the missile designs posted.

Hyperdrives not being available doesn't break my heart since I don't use them.

Charlie

[sloanjh (OP)]

Hyperdrives not being available doesn't break my heart since I don't use them.

To riff on this: Hyperdrive isn't very useful from a strategic point of view if the civies don't use it when planning their routes.  So before it gets turned on, I would recommend implementing route-planning code that automatically turns hyperdrive on/off when the boundary is crossed and that includes hyperdrive speed in time estimates.

I see two ways to implement the routine-planning:

1)  When the route is being calculated, insert waypoints at or outside the hyper boundary that turns the engine on or off.  The problem with this is binary companions, which move.  For a single trip you could simply move the waypoint out far enough that you wouldn't run into the boundary, but for permanent, cycling routes that wouldn't work.  Another thing that could be done to work around this problem would be to introduce a new type of waypoint whose location was calculated on the fly according to the position of the companion.  Basically, it would draw a line from current position to companion, then back up along the line by the hyperdrive distance.  (It would then need to check if this point was inside the limit of any other bodies - if so it would need to use the boundary point for the other body instead.)

2)  During movement, if a ship starts outside the hyperdrive boundary two things happen: A) If hyperdrive is off, turn it on.  B)  If movement impulse puts ship inside hyper limit, turn hyperdrive off.  Not sure if this would be a big performance impact or not.

John

[xeryon]

The function of Hyperdrive won't be as critical now that civilian path generation has been updated to make use of LP navigation routes. 

On a similar note, the creation of LP points:  There are many occasions with Binary, Trinary and Quadrinary systems where the prerequisite gas giants that could produce the two navigable LP for cross system navigation do not exist.  Why is it that the stars themselves do not produce the LP?   If the star is in orbit of the primary would the 2nd, 3rd and 4th stars not have the required mass to create a gravity well sufficient to make an LP that can be navigated?

[sloanjh (OP)]

The function of Hyperdrive won't be as critical now that civilian path generation has been updated to make use of LP navigation routes.

For those systems with LP in both primary and companion.... 

Even with hyperdrive, it's still a pain in the patootie to colonize (or originate in) a companion system that's a significant distance away from the primary.

On a similar note, the creation of LP points:  There are many occasions with Binary, Trinary and Quadrinary systems where the prerequisite gas giants that could produce the two navigable LP for cross system navigation do not exist.  Why is it that the stars themselves do not produce the LP?   If the star is in orbit of the primary would the 2nd, 3rd and 4th stars not have the required mass to create a gravity well sufficient to make an LP that can be navigated?

This would only be useful in trinary or quadrinary systems where two of the companions are close together.  Since LP are at +/- 60 degrees, they form an equilateral triangle with the two generating bodies and transiting to the LP puts you just as far away from a binary companion as the primary is.  The place this would be a benefit would be when the 3rd or 4th star is in a tight orbit around the companion (at which point your 1st comment kicks in).  I assume this is what you meant by "the prerequisite gas giants ... don't exist".

John

[xeryon]

Correct.  I know that star created LP locations might not be a benefit in many situations but in an instance like you are noting, where a companion star is in a close orbit and creates a LP in close range of the outlying stars, would be very useful.

[Jackal Cry]

I really think Sorium mining should be made easier and be explained more clearly.   It's strange that Sorium Harvesters convert their collected Sorium directly into fuel while asteroid miners collect their minerals on the colony they're mining on.   The options in the Task Group command window don't seem to align correctly, either.   I get interrupting messages every time the harvesters are above 90% fuel, but there's no IF condition for "fuel tanks at or above 90%.  " I just have to deal with the time stopping earlier than normal so it can tell me the harvesters are nearly full.   I don't care about when they're nearly full, since their condition to drop their fuel off is set for "fuel tanks full!"

Why shouldn't there be IF conditions for fuel levels at every 10% mark? It goes up to 50% and stops.   There should be IF conditions for "at or below 10% fuel," "at or below 20% fuel," and so on all the way up to 90%, and then a "fuel tanks full" condition as well.   

The THEN conditions for fuel unloading and Sorium harvesting in particular should be made better.   I can drop 90% of my fuel at the nearest colony, or I can drop all my fuel at "colony" (not "nearest colony") and move to nearest Sorium source.   Why can't I "unload 90% fuel at nearest colony and move to nearest Sorium source"? Why can't I specify the colony I want them to drop the fuel off to? In my current game, harvesting Saturn is proving to be a pain, since my harvester ships don't want to drop their fuel off automatically at the nearby colony of Titan.   

I think there should be a statement somewhere in the class design window that says something to the effect of "harvested Sorium is directly added to fuel tanks.  " Perhaps have a similar statement for asteroid miners, "harvested minerals are stockpiled on the colony being mined.  " If the message is prominent enough, like in a new Notes section or something, it should hopefully prevent anyone from putting cargo holds on their miners because they think they need them. 

I've also been having problems with the Join command for Task Groups.   I tell TG-1 to Join TG-2.   Then I reopen the F12 Task Group window and get the warning message that TG-1 no longer exists, and it shows me the ships that are in TG-2.   But if I want to delete TG-1, I need to be very careful.   If I hit the delete button with the ships from TG-2 being shown (mistakenly) in the TG-1 menu (which is the Task Group I'm currently viewing in the Task Group window), the ships in TG-2 will be deleted and removed as well! I have to select an empty Task Group, then select TG-1 and hit the Delete button.   That way no ships are accidentally deleted/

[Nathan_]

"I've also been having problems with the Join command for Task Groups.   I tell TG-1 to Join TG-2.   Then I reopen the F12 Task Group window and get the warning message that TG-1 no longer exists, and it shows me the ships that are in TG-2." - did you close and reopen f12, or just switch away from it. it doesn't refresh the display(which it should) when a taskforce is deleted.

On sorium harvesters, the best thing to do is to have a tanker ferry fuel back from the harvester rather than trying to get the harvester to go somewhere and dump off fuel.

[Havear]

Are you going to look at laser 'heads again, what with all the missile changes? If missiles are going to pricier to use, it'd be nice for more of them to actually complete their goal of using explodey, gooey plasma against a target.

[gunkan]

I can't help but wonder how this new morale stuff works with PDC's.  Once they're built (in deep space!) you can't really haul them back for shore leave.  Granted a posting on a forward Fighter base would suck, but limit crew rotations and it isn't all that bad.  The only way I can think of to give the PDC "Shore leave" is to haul an orbital habitat out to them, fill it with 10k colonists and let it sit for a bit. . .  In Gunkanian Imperium Red-Light district comes to you!

[sublight]

So far my personal observation is that PDC moral simply doesn't factor in deployment time, but lets the 'time away' harmlessly run up the clock just like NPR maintenance times.

At least, that's what the PDCs on Earth in my 6.0 test game appear to be doing. Three years on the clock despite being located on Earth, but moral is still 100%.


So far I like the new missile changes. At the very least they make geo-survey probes much more feasible. I went with a conventional start and played Nasa with early robotic missions to the asteroid belt using conventinional-tech geo-survey missile/buoys fueled for a 1 billion km range. Sure they had a dinky 100 km/s top speed, but the asteroids and dwarf planets couldn't run away.

[Nathan_]

I can't help but wonder how this new morale stuff works with PDC's.  Once they're built (in deep space!) you can't really haul them back for shore leave.  Granted a posting on a forward Fighter base would suck, but limit crew rotations and it isn't all that bad.  The only way I can think of to give the PDC "Shore leave" is to haul an orbital habitat out to them, fill it with 10k colonists and let it sit for a bit. . .  In Gunkanian Imperium Red-Light district comes to you!

If you want to role play it, have a crew ship visit the PDC every once in a while.

[Jikor]

I couldn't tell from the other posts but do orbital habitats require shore leave? They have enough colonist on them to qualify as a shore leave option it seems so would that count for them?

[Gidoran]

I don't believe they do. A design I hashed together in my initial test campaign had some engines, cryostorage, and an orbital habitat intended to be a mobile shore leave point for fleet trains, but it didn't seem to require leave itself. Might be wrong, I didn't play around too much; too busy trying to figure out how to into missiles.

[Gyrfalcon]

Very silly question, but I couldn't find an answer by searching for it:

Have command modules been removed in 6.00?

I was playing with a test game, busy granting tech to my civilization and noticed that I never unlocked Command Modules, even when most other internal components were researched.