Author Topic: C# Aurora Changes Discussion  (Read 277990 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline froggiest1982

  • Captain
  • **********
  • f
  • Posts: 411
  • Thanked: 98 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1395 on: January 25, 2018, 04:12:46 PM »
So I was thinking, with the rewrite bringing up the opportunity to add new options, and the new depth in ground combat, is there any chance of getting a toggle for research capture? I regularly avoid letting my underdog games weaker factions actually invade worlds, only to avoid the underdog suddenly just learning half the advanced tech in the game. I can see where people would want that, but in a fully RP, player controlled game, I don't really want my setup being yanked out cuz a faction stole a bunch of levels of tech I was thematically avoiding.

I can see and understand your frustration, but it is always possible to change this in SM mode. However, I believe Steve is working on something similar or at least I believe I've read something about it but it's now buried in a conversation. The discussion was to set up the game from beginning with the possibility of stealing or not techs and also which one of the secret techs would be available in a game to acquire, at the start or not at all.

I believe if the above will confirmed and implemented then pretty much sorts your issue. ;D

Edit: I just found the post http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=9761.0
« Last Edit: January 25, 2018, 04:14:18 PM by froggiest1982 »
 

Offline Felius

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • F
  • Posts: 35
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1396 on: January 25, 2018, 05:29:55 PM »
Don't know if anyone mentioned it already, and I'm not going through the 94 pages of thread to check it out, but a couple comments from the changes:

Quote
Shield Generators

Shield generators have been overhauled for C# Aurora to make them more interesting.

1) Shields no longer require fuel.
2) Shield generators can be created from 1 HS to 50 HS in size.
3) A new tech line has been added for maximum shield generator size. The starting tech is 10 HS and there are seven further steps from 12 to 50 with RP costs between 2000 RP and 120,000 RP.
3) The strength of the generator is modified by its size using the formula SQRT(HS/10). This means a 10 HS generator will have standard strength, a 1 HS generator will have 32% of normal strength and 50 HS generator will have 224% of normal strength
4) Recharge rates remain as before so a 10 HS shield will recharge at the same rate as an equivalent tech VB6 shield generator. Larger generators will recharge more slowly. For example, a 40 HS generator has 200% strength so will take twice as long to fully recharge.
5) HTK is the square root of the size, so it is easier to take out a single 50 HS generator than five 10 HS generators.
6) Cost of shields has been doubled
7) The only mineral involved in building shields is Corbomite.

In general, this means that shields become stronger than before and larger ships have an advantage when using shield generators. However, they also cost more, require more investment in research and are easier to destroy.
Doesn't that mean that multiple smaller shields would be better than an equivalent HS of larger shields? Or is that strength before multiplying by the shield size?

Quote
Commander Careers

In C# Aurora, the rules for accidental death and commander health remain as they are in VB6 Aurora.

Retirements are handled differently. An naval officer will be checked for the potential for retirement from service once the length of his career exceeds the minimum retirement time for his rank. The minimum retirement point is 10 years for the lowest rank. For other ranks it is equal to 10, plus 5 years for every level of rank above the minimum. So assuming lieutenant commander was the lowest rank, minimum retirement would be 10 years after career start for a lieutenant commander, 15 years for a commander, 20 years for a captain, etc..

For ground forces commanders the minimum retirement is 20 years for the minimum rank. For other ranks it is equal to 20, plus 5 years for every level of rank above the minimum.

For scientists and administrators the minimum retirement is 40 years.

The chance of the retirement occurring is 20% for each year beyond the minimum retirement date. This is doubled if the commander has no assignment. Each increment the chance is checked using: (Increment Length / One Year) * Retirement Chance.

The VB6 concept of 'tour length' does not exist in C# Aurora, so there will no longer be mass-reassignments every couple of years. In addition, the removal of officers after six years with no command will no longer happen. Instead, C# should have a more realistic progression because of the different mechanics. Firstly, inactive or low ranked commanders will tend to retire relatively early, which will keep overall officer numbers down and open up their commands (if one exists) for new assignments. Secondly, ships can potentially have multiple officers, which creates many more assignments. Thirdly, each ship (or other officer position) can only be assigned to an officer of a specific rank. As soon as that officer is promoted, he has to leave that position, which opens it up for another officer. Finally, naval officers in non-command positions (XO, Tactical Officer, CAG, Chief Engineer, Science Officer), will be automatically assigned to any ship command position that becomes available, assuming they have suitable bonuses, opening up their previous role.

Ship commander ranks are based on the following rules:

1) Assume lowest rank if none of the following conditions exist. Otherwise use the highest applicable rank for any condition.
2) Lowest rank + 1 for any ship class equipped with any of the following: Geological or Gravitational Sensors, Auxiliary Control, Science Department, Jump Drive
3) Lowest rank + 2 for any ship equipped with any of the following: Weapons, Military Hangar Bay, Main Engineering, CIC, Flag Bridge
4) Regardless of the above, any ship of 1000 tons or less will be the lowest rank, unless it has one of the control stations (Auxiliary Control, Science Department, Main Engineering, CIC)

Additional officers on the same ship have the following rank requirements:
1) One rank lower than required ship commander rank: Executive Officer, Science Officer, Commander Air Group
2) Two ranks lower than required ship commander rank: Chief Engineer, Tactical Officer

For example, the executive officer on a warship would be lowest rank + 1 (one lower than commander requirement) while the executive officer on an unarmed geological survey ship would be the lowest rank.

Overall, the variety of positions available at different ranks, combined with the positions opening up due to retirements, promotions and assignment of junior officers to ship command, should provide a more interesting career progression.
The retirement chances not only will be rather counter-intuitive in how it works (a 20% in a year does not actually mean 20% in that year, but around 18%, while 100% means around 64%), but with that formua also means that the increment length that the player makes time go by actually does somewhat alter the chance of it happening in an equivalent period of time.
 

Offline Graham

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • Posts: 47
  • Thanked: 17 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1397 on: January 25, 2018, 06:16:36 PM »
Quote from: Felius link=topic=8497. msg106334#msg106334 date=1516922995
Don't know if anyone mentioned it already, and I'm not going through the 94 pages of thread to check it out, but a couple comments from the changes:
Doesn't that mean that multiple smaller shields would be better than an equivalent HS of larger shields? Or is that strength before multiplying by the shield size?

That is strength before multiplying as I understand, meaning a size 40 shield gives twice as much total strength as 4 size 10 shields.
 

Offline TheDeadlyShoe

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1264
  • Thanked: 57 times
  • Dance Commander
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1398 on: January 25, 2018, 08:04:28 PM »
The retirement chances not only will be rather counter-intuitive in how it works (a 20% in a year does not actually mean 20% in that year, but around 18%, while 100% means around 64%), but with that formua also means that the increment length that the player makes time go by actually does somewhat alter the chance of it happening in an equivalent period of time.

It doesn't matter if its counter intuitive because it will be behind the scenes. 
 

Offline Profugo Barbatus

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • P
  • Posts: 72
  • Thanked: 17 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1399 on: January 26, 2018, 12:36:56 AM »
I can see and understand your frustration, but it is always possible to change this in SM mode. However, I believe Steve is working on something similar or at least I believe I've read something about it but it's now buried in a conversation. The discussion was to set up the game from beginning with the possibility of stealing or not techs and also which one of the secret techs would be available in a game to acquire, at the start or not at all.

I believe if the above will confirmed and implemented then pretty much sorts your issue. ;D

Edit: I just found the post http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=9761.0

I can disable tech being learned from invasions in SM mode? I wasn't aware of this. I also don't see anything about tech capture in that discussion either. I love the talk of being more finely able to control tech rates, and other rates in the game, but it doesn't really cover my concern there.
 

Offline alex_brunius

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1096
  • Thanked: 64 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1400 on: January 26, 2018, 03:47:42 AM »
Quote
Dangerous Gas: If a dangerous gas is present in the atmosphere and the concentration is above the danger level, the colony cost factor for dangerous gases will either be 2.00 or 3.00, depending on the gas. Different gases require different concentrations before becoming 'dangerous'. Halogens such as Chlorine, Bromine or Flourine are the most dangerous at 1 ppm, followed by Nitrogen Dioxide and Sulphur Dioxide at 5 ppm. Hydrogen Sulphide is 20 ppm, Carbon Monoxide and Ammonia are 50 ppm, Hydrogen, Methane (if an oxygen breather) and Oxygen (if a Methane breather) are at 500 ppm and Carbon Dioxide is at 5000 ppm (0.5% of atmosphere). Note that Carbon Dioxide was not classed as a dangerous gas in VB6 Aurora. These gases are not lethal at those concentrations but are dangerous enough that infrastructure would be required to avoid sustained exposure.

Has the thought been considered to have Conventional Industry also work as a weak terraformer locked into producing Carbon Dioxide?

Id love to have better early gameplay and fleshed out transition between conventional - TN tech level ( with things like struggling with climate change and early conventional rockets struggling to reach beyond moon-mars or only being able to make the trip when mars is close and have to be loaded with mostly fuel )
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • J
  • Posts: 1862
  • Thanked: 272 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1401 on: January 26, 2018, 04:49:33 AM »
I can disable tech being learned from invasions in SM mode? I wasn't aware of this. I also don't see anything about tech capture in that discussion either. I love the talk of being more finely able to control tech rates, and other rates in the game, but it doesn't really cover my concern there.

No... what you can do is remove technologies that was learned from an invasion using SM mode.
 

Offline Hazard

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • H
  • Posts: 627
  • Thanked: 62 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1402 on: January 26, 2018, 07:34:33 AM »
Has the thought been considered to have Conventional Industry also work as a weak terraformer locked into producing Carbon Dioxide?

Id love to have better early gameplay and fleshed out transition between conventional - TN tech level ( with things like struggling with climate change and early conventional rockets struggling to reach beyond moon-mars or only being able to make the trip when mars is close and have to be loaded with mostly fuel )

Current carbon dioxide content of Earth's atmosphere is, after more than a century of burning fossil fuels, 0.0000407 atmosphere.

Pretty much negligible for the purposes of the game.
 

Offline alex_brunius

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1096
  • Thanked: 64 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1403 on: January 26, 2018, 09:11:47 AM »
Current carbon dioxide content of Earth's atmosphere is, after more than a century of burning fossil fuels, 0.0000407 atmosphere.

Pretty much negligible for the purposes of the game.

Not really. Since the game considers it harmful at 0.005 atmospheres (or 5000ppm), and that 407 ppm represents 0.000407 atmospheres, not 0.0000407.

It is true that right now we are in reality adding about 3 ppm / year meaning we would reach Aurora harmful levels after 1531 years, but I'm not sure how realistic the Aurora 4x model of CO2 as a greenhouse gas is, and the temperature increase is another thing to consider (melting of ice caps). If current addition rate was negligible I doubt it would be such a debate as seen currently.

Even given the current model it's not unimaginable to have an Aurora 4X fossil fuel based conventional industry 10-20 times larger then that which we have on Earth now, which would reach it in 150 or 75 years.

Something else to consider is that the rate of CO2 addition is speeding up, a 100 years ago we were adding about 10% per year compared to now, and it shows no sign of stopping, so if the exponential increase continues we are looking at a rate of 30 ppm / year not to far away into the future.


It seems like it wouldn't be such a hard thing to add, and would add a few interesting stories or scenarios you can play out.


« Last Edit: January 26, 2018, 09:16:21 AM by alex_brunius »
 

Offline Hazard

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • H
  • Posts: 627
  • Thanked: 62 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1404 on: January 26, 2018, 09:41:21 AM »
Not really. Since the game considers it harmful at 0.005 atmospheres (or 5000ppm), and that 407 ppm represents 0.000407 atmospheres, not 0.0000407.

It is true that right now we are in reality adding about 3 ppm / year meaning we would reach Aurora harmful levels after 1531 years, but I'm not sure how realistic the Aurora 4x model of CO2 as a greenhouse gas is, and the temperature increase is another thing to consider (melting of ice caps). If current addition rate was negligible I doubt it would be such a debate as seen currently.

It is negligible in the context of the game, where even 1 terraforming plant at the basic tech level operated by 50 000 people can add or remove 1 000 ppm per year, and the game doesn't model the effects of such vast shifts in atmospheric composition when it comes to ecology, societal impact and climate beyond abstracting it away as 'requires X Infrastructure per million inhabitants beyond pressure/temperature/gravity range.'

Even given the current model it's not unimaginable to have an Aurora 4X fossil fuel based conventional industry 10-20 times larger then that which we have on Earth now, which would reach it in 150 or 75 years.

At which point it becomes fairly trivial to develop basic terraforming technology and construct a terraforming facility well before it becomes relevant to the game's poisonous atmosphere mechanics, and probably well before the planet becomes uninhabitable due to excessively high temperatures unless the planet's temperature was already on the higher end of the species' habitability range.

Something else to consider is that the rate of CO2 addition is speeding up, a 100 years ago we were adding about 10% per year compared to now, and it shows no sign of stopping, so if the exponential increase continues we are looking at a rate of 30 ppm / year not to far away into the future.

It's increasing and keeps increasing because due to the growing global population and the growing energy demand per person for the purposes of production and mobility we continue burning more fossil fuels in absolute numbers. It may be shrinking per capita, but I doubt it.

The thing about fossil fuels is that they are really convenient ways to store and transport large quantities of energy, not least of which due to their reliability which can't be matched by solar and wind power.


It seems like it wouldn't be such a hard thing to add, and would add a few interesting stories or scenarios you can play out.

If it wasn't for how easy terraforming is in comparison to reality I'd agree.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2018, 09:44:27 AM by Hazard »
 

Offline alex_brunius

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1096
  • Thanked: 64 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1405 on: January 26, 2018, 09:57:52 AM »
So the criteria for this to be relevant would be custom difficulty setting for terraforming speed? Sounds good and I agree.
 

Offline SpaceCowboy

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • S
  • Posts: 10
  • Thanked: 2 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1406 on: January 26, 2018, 01:28:08 PM »
Hey Steve,

I just saw the placeholder post in the "Changes List" for changes to the Solar System, and it got me thinking: would it be possible to add in known exoplanets to Aurora, in the same way the Solar System is the same every game? Several of the nearby real stars that pop up in games have confirmed planetary companions.

Even more cool would be to have the known planets plus some random generation of smaller planets that we would not be able to detect using current methods.  As an example, Pollux could have real-life planet Pollux b in orbit out at 1. 6 AU, and then Aurora could generate a couple of imaginary terrestrial planets (or whatever) interior to that.
 

Offline waresky

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1475
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • Alpine Mountaineer..ohh Yeah!
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1407 on: January 26, 2018, 04:33:18 PM »
Everyone talk about physics,weapons...but : TAXES? Politics? 1 tax level by EVERY single planets,no difference?No settings allowed?..its really annoying.
 

Offline Barkhorn

  • Captain
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 544
  • Thanked: 76 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1408 on: January 26, 2018, 04:49:17 PM »
Everyone talk about physics,weapons...but : TAXES? Politics? 1 tax level by EVERY single planets,no difference?No settings allowed?..its really annoying.
At the risk of being called a casual, I think Stellaris actually has a really good take on this.  I've never played the game, but I've watched a fair amount, so maybe it's not done well but the idea is sound.

I really love the idea of ethics and ethics drift.  I think it should be an optional system, like maintenance is, but it would be really cool if there was more internal politics.
 

Offline froggiest1982

  • Captain
  • **********
  • f
  • Posts: 411
  • Thanked: 98 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1409 on: January 26, 2018, 09:59:55 PM »
Everyone talk about physics,weapons...but : TAXES? Politics? 1 tax level by EVERY single planets,no difference?No settings allowed?..its really annoying.

Verissimo

I second this
 
The following users thanked this post: waresky

 

Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72