Author Topic: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions  (Read 106910 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline SpikeTheHobbitMage

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • S
  • Posts: 123
  • Thanked: 14 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1020 on: February 06, 2019, 11:59:21 PM »
Isn't that essentially already implemented? C# requires two populated colonies (including the capital) for freighters and colony ships to be built, and at least two populated systems for passenger liners. Or would the 10 million pop change it significantly?

Very significantly.  At the moment, the instant the first colonist sets foot on "Moonbase 1" or wherever, the civilians start shipping colonists and free Infrastructure.  As a result, an empire doesn't need lift capacity of its own; one small ship can do the job of creating "designated populations" wherever by dropping off 1 Infrastructure and 0.0001 million population and let the civilians do the rest.
Not even that. You only need to put down Infrastructure and the civilians will take care of the rest. I haven't built colony ships in years!

C# Aurira will require a population, not just Infrastructure, at the destination to move colonists.  However, it will also give us the ability to move 100 colonists instead of 10,000, so still massively easy to exploit.

To be honest I don't think it is an exploit, it is a built in feature and something you want the civilians to do.... why should the state move these items and develop the colonies?!?

The state basically do the initial colonization and spend the upfront resources to do so the civilian economy take care of the rest.

As far as I know the civilians also only move regular infrastructure, if you need other types of infrastructure you need to move it on your own.

There is also a cost in having your civilians move infrastructure which is trade. I don't think you get much wealth if the civilians move infrastructure. At least it would make sense if that would be the case. Them moving the infrastructure is bonus enough in my opinion.
IIRC, they will move low gravity infrastructure, but only to/from low gravity worlds, which is going to be 'fun' for your first LG colony, and I do believe it still counts as trade.  But as you say, I'm just glad I don't have to pay for it.   :)
 

Offline Father Tim

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1185
  • Thanked: 146 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1021 on: February 07, 2019, 03:07:37 AM »
Quote from: SpikeTheHobbitMage link=topic=9841.msg112710#msg112710
IIRC, they will move low gravity infrastructure, but only to/from low gravity worlds, which is going to be 'fun' for your first LG colony, and I do believe it still counts as trade.  But as you say, I'm just glad I don't have to pay for it.   :)

I really hope they only move LGI from acceptable-grav worlds, and only to Low-Grav worlds.

Or a lot of Alzairians are going to die.
 

Offline SpikeTheHobbitMage

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • S
  • Posts: 123
  • Thanked: 14 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1022 on: February 07, 2019, 10:37:20 AM »
Quote from: SpikeTheHobbitMage link=topic=9841.msg112710#msg112710
IIRC, they will move low gravity infrastructure, but only to/from low gravity worlds, which is going to be 'fun' for your first LG colony, and I do believe it still counts as trade.  But as you say, I'm just glad I don't have to pay for it.   :)

I really hope they only move LGI from acceptable-grav worlds, and only to Low-Grav worlds.

Or a lot of Alzairians are going to die.
I may have misread (or misremembered) Steve's post on the matter, but it seemed that only low-grav worlds produce LGI.

That would be a fun bug, in the Dwarf Fortress sense.
 

Offline MarcAFK

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1874
  • Thanked: 86 times
  • ...it's so simple an idiot could have devised it..
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1023 on: February 07, 2019, 08:42:09 PM »
So it seems there needs to be a check to see if a population has spare unused LGI capacity before it gets moved. or maybe a toggle in the civilian screen where you can choose if the planet imports of exports LGI in the same vein as the civilian colonization status screen.
" Why is this godforsaken hellhole worth dying for? "
". . .  We know nothing about them, their language, their history or what they look like.  But we can assume this.  They stand for everything we don't stand for.  Also they told me you guys look like dorks. "
"Stop exploding, you cowards.  "
 

Offline JacenHan

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 323
  • Thanked: 42 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1024 on: February 07, 2019, 08:50:36 PM »
I'm pretty sure that in VB6 civilians take infrastructure as a trade good and transform it into "actual" infrastructure at the destination, so that there isn't any loss on the source world. If it works the same for LGI in C#, there shouldn't be any issue of mass die-offs.
 

Offline SpikeTheHobbitMage

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • S
  • Posts: 123
  • Thanked: 14 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1025 on: February 07, 2019, 09:15:35 PM »
I'm pretty sure that in VB6 civilians take infrastructure as a trade good and transform it into "actual" infrastructure at the destination, so that there isn't any loss on the source world. If it works the same for LGI in C#, there shouldn't be any issue of mass die-offs.
Yes, that is exactly how it works.  If you want installed infrastructure moved, you have to pay the shipping fees or move it yourself.  On top of that, trade good infrastructure can't be converted in place.  It must first be loaded onto a civilian freighter to become 'real'.
 

Offline sublight

  • Pulsar 4x Dev
  • Captain
  • *
  • s
  • Posts: 591
  • Thanked: 15 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1026 on: February 08, 2019, 01:56:29 PM »
I always assumed Small tank prices were such to avoid making internal HTK too cheap, but that did leave the Standard fuel tanks feeling over priced. It's nice to see those costs revisited.

The new Tiny/Small/Standard costs look great, but I'm concerned that the bigger tanks now feel too cheap. It feels wrong that the material costs increase even slower than surface area.

So... I guess I'm suggesting the fuel tank costs be tweaked to scale directly with surface area, or size^(2/3).

Fuel Storage - Tiny: 5,000 litres, 0.5 BP
Fuel Storage - Small: 10,000 litres, 0.8 BP
Fuel Storage - Standard: 50,000 litres, 2 BP
Fuel Storage - Large: 250,000 litres, 6 BP
Fuel Storage - Very Large: 1,000,000 litres, 17 BP
Fuel Storage - Ultra Large: 5,000,000 litres, 50 BP
(costs derived at pegging 10,000L as .8, then rounding the other costs down)
 
The following users thanked this post: QuakeIV, SpikeTheHobbitMage

Offline QuakeIV

  • Registered
  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 335
  • Thanked: 29 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1027 on: February 08, 2019, 02:10:59 PM »
That seems like a good way to do it to me.
 

Offline MarcAFK

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1874
  • Thanked: 86 times
  • ...it's so simple an idiot could have devised it..
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1028 on: February 08, 2019, 07:09:06 PM »
Seems reasonable.
" Why is this godforsaken hellhole worth dying for? "
". . .  We know nothing about them, their language, their history or what they look like.  But we can assume this.  They stand for everything we don't stand for.  Also they told me you guys look like dorks. "
"Stop exploding, you cowards.  "
 

KingEdward9830

  • Guest
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1029 on: February 09, 2019, 01:55:49 AM »
I really shouldn't be posting this late at night, but I hope once this rewrite is done you can look into some higher-tier techs.  Just a fun little idea: Super-intelligent AIs could be a bit of a "gamble" type tech, if you create a friendly one it'll enhance research/industry in whatever area it's built for exponentially, but if you create a rogue one(see: paperclip maximizer problem). . .  You're in for a bad time.
 

Online DEEPenergy

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • Posts: 30
  • Thanked: 10 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1030 on: February 13, 2019, 05:53:01 PM »
Civilian asteroid miners. Along with the ability to ban them from bodies/systems  :)
 

Offline MarcAFK

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1874
  • Thanked: 86 times
  • ...it's so simple an idiot could have devised it..
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1031 on: February 13, 2019, 08:04:54 PM »
That should be an option, if a roll is made for CMCs and the body is suitable for asteroid miners then an equivalent batch of miners could be assembled and launched.
" Why is this godforsaken hellhole worth dying for? "
". . .  We know nothing about them, their language, their history or what they look like.  But we can assume this.  They stand for everything we don't stand for.  Also they told me you guys look like dorks. "
"Stop exploding, you cowards.  "
 

Offline procdrone

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • Posts: 8
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1032 on: February 13, 2019, 09:55:49 PM »
This is but a simple UI improvement suggestions.

1.  Add a button to galactic map, which allows jumping straight to the currently selected system view.

2.  In Task force UI, remove selecting Task forces from the dropbox(which I find greatly inconvenient, given number of various TFs you gather later in the game), and make a combo box with a full list on the left side of the TF window.
To be fair, the systems list in the system view could be similarly treated.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7904
  • Thanked: 4256 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1033 on: February 14, 2019, 03:37:25 AM »
This is but a simple UI improvement suggestions.

1.  Add a button to galactic map, which allows jumping straight to the currently selected system view.

2.  In Task force UI, remove selecting Task forces from the dropbox(which I find greatly inconvenient, given number of various TFs you gather later in the game), and make a combo box with a full list on the left side of the TF window.
To be fair, the systems list in the system view could be similarly treated.

1) You can double-click on systems (in VB6 too) to open the system view.

2) The fleet window is completely different in C# (check the changes or screenshots threads) and has a fleet hierarchy, not a dropdown.
 

Offline procdrone

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • Posts: 8
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1034 on: February 14, 2019, 04:23:05 AM »
Quote from: Steve Walmsley link=topic=9841. msg112804#msg112804 date=1550137045
Quote from: procdrone link=topic=9841. msg112799#msg112799 date=1550116549
This is but a simple UI improvement suggestions. 

1.   Add a button to galactic map, which allows jumping straight to the currently selected system view. 

2.   In Task force UI, remove selecting Task forces from the dropbox(which I find greatly inconvenient, given number of various TFs you gather later in the game), and make a combo box with a full list on the left side of the TF window. 
To be fair, the systems list in the system view could be similarly treated.

1) You can double-click on systems (in VB6 too) to open the system view. 

2) The fleet window is completely different in C# (check the changes or screenshots threads) and has a fleet hierarchy, not a dropdown.

Double clicking on a system in the galaxy view only brings up the "F9" (System Generation and Display), and not the System Map, the thing im suggesting.
 

 

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