Author Topic: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions  (Read 141879 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7974
  • Thanked: 4477 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1485 on: November 02, 2019, 01:43:36 PM »
The balance of many economic aspects of the game is changing for C#. Wealth is harder to create, manpower constraints are much greater, especially for shipyards, terraforming is more time-consuming, maintenance is more 'expensive' in terms of number of installations, orbital mining is based on diameter rather than asteroid classification, etc.. You can no longer subsidise civilian shipping or shut down entire industry sectors or use construction factories to create maintenance supplies.

I have already been adjusting things as I go and it will take a while before that balance starts to shake out. For example, with the new space station rules I thought I would be using construction factories to build space stations, but I've found I needed them for maintenance facilities and financial centres. I would like to expand shipyards to build more commercial vessels but available population has proven to be a significant issue, etc..

There probably is some balancing to be done with ground vs space, but I need to see how everything else works out first, including the fact that installations are likely to be a lot safer on the ground in C# vs VB6.
 
The following users thanked this post: Viridia

Offline QuakeIV

  • Registered
  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 354
  • Thanked: 31 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1486 on: November 02, 2019, 07:11:14 PM »
I feel like for the most part my terraforming post was met with a resounding 'i dont want terraforming to be that difficult', which is like okay I guess.  It was just an idea.
 

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1351
  • Thanked: 160 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1487 on: November 02, 2019, 08:20:46 PM »
I use TF facilities. If you do a conventional start with a big population, in the early game, it's faster and easier to build and move couple a dozen TF facilities to Mars. Then I, later on, move them to Colony Cost 2.0 planets while I save my TF ships for more challenging targets.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2019, 11:33:54 AM by Garfunkel »
 

Offline QuakeIV

  • Registered
  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 354
  • Thanked: 31 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1488 on: November 03, 2019, 01:29:08 AM »
I guess another thing is they might make a lot more sense if you had worlds that needed a degree of constant upkeep to keep them terraformed.  For instance, small moons leaking an atmosphere, or some very hostile world constantly releasing toxic gases and/or burning up all of the oxygen.  (maybe burning the oxygen into oxygen difluoride)

This would be very much a long term suggestion, but it might be cool to add as a sortof thing where you would have a large roving fleet of terraformer ships, and then be building/setting up smaller numbers of terraformer installations to keep the planet in good condition without having to go to all of the maintenance trouble.
 

Online Jorgen_CAB

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • J
  • Posts: 1125
  • Thanked: 90 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1489 on: November 03, 2019, 02:32:11 PM »

There actually is a real issue with being able to build and use something which have no related cost to it... I don't think the cost should be enormous... just enough so you can't spam a commercial fleet and stations without ANY support cost. I don't think that freighters or fuel ships will be very expensive... I would rather target things like terraforming stations, habitats and maintenance facilities that require no population to actually have a cost.

You also would need to pay the merchant marine and do some rudimentary maintenance on ships and neither can be free.

The exact cost would be about balance.

Okay, but you're defining imperial wealth generation as 'every centicredit collected' and then complaining that salaries and supplies aren't accounted for, and I'm defining wealth as what the government has left over after paying for all thise things.  Neither one of us is more right than the other.

In your view, the merchant marine & space 'infrastructure' is a net drain on imperial coffers, and therefore should cost increasing wealth as it expands.

I counter that those things can be a net gain for "the economy", and that the wealth Aurora shows us is profit after paying for those things you are complaining aren't being paid for.  I say that Aurora is simply not line-item listing that it's paying for them.

- - - -

But really, your point seems to be "you can't spam a commercial fleet and stations without ANY support cost."  And whether -- or to what extent -- that is true I say depends on the empire's overall financial situation.  Which means it should be debated alongside that overall financial situation.  Your point (as I understand it) is essentially "Aurora empires have too much wealth; here's how I would reduce it."  My point is "Aurora empires only have 'too much wealth' due to exploiting commercial shippping.  If epires don't do that, they in fact do not have enough wealth."

You're right, I can't spam a commercial fleet, as hard as I try, because I can't afford it without the large wealth boost of exploiting commercial shippping lines.

- - - -

To ruthlessly summarize all of the recent posts, I think it is a fundamental part of Aurora's DNA to present the player with the choice of the cheap, worker intensive installation (e.g. Mine); the expensive, low- (or no-) manpower version (e.g. AutoMine); and the restricted (perhaps less efficient) ship-mounted module (e.g. Asteroid Miner) that has the benefit of high mobility.

I always changed the tolerance levels for human colonisation in Aurora to 0.7-1.3 as that are probably more realistic (although high gravity are way more dangerous), anything else would need some gene modification. In addition to this I always removed allot of the initial wealth with SM in conventional starts. So I'm not that well versed in exploiting the moon or mars... I always also restricted the subsidisation of civilian fleets as I felt it could be a bit ridiculous, especially in a conventional start where you swim in wealth without restrictions on yourself.

So... wealth have always been an issue to monitor in all of my games so far so I'm not approaching this from the perspective of exploiting the civilian trade. Just to be clear...  ;)

I probably don't' agree that it is a zero sum game to run the commercial ships for the same reason you need to pay for civilian ships to move things and operate for you instead of generating wealth moving trade goods. If you could use your commercial ships to move trade goods then I would not argue this, but you can't... might be an interesting thing you could do. There could be a "state" company and if you assign freighters or colony ships they would operate as civilian ships but you built them. You could then take them of this duty and control them directly but you still have to pay for any trips they take in some wealth as well as paying for the fuel when you want to make more controlled missions. While part of the "state" company the state could actually earn wealth with them as all the income goes directly to the state.

In my opinion state controlled freighters should be more expensive to use long term, but there also are strategical benefits of using them.

I also fail to see how a supply or ammunition ship part of a fleet is an economical zero sum game type of ship, they should be nothing but a drain on resources other than build cost and fuel. A small wealth cost would be fine and really easy to implement.

I do agree with Steve that it should not be done without testing and balancing, I would never suggest that. I clearly stated it needed to be tested and balanced first. As Steve already changed allot of the the economic underpinning foundations I would be fine if this was considered at a later date.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2019, 02:34:13 PM by Jorgen_CAB »
 

Offline MultiVitamin

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • M
  • Posts: 49
  • Thanked: 5 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1490 on: November 05, 2019, 05:31:42 AM »
So while reading through the Crusade campaign and seeing the ground forces Steve designed, it just occurred to me. Would it be possible to, once a unit is designed, be able to rename the components that that unit has? It's purely aesthetic and helps with the immersion, but I figured I'd like to see "Heavy Bolter" rather then "Crew-Served Anti-Personnel" when looking at my space marine. Again, it's purely aesthetic and immersion, but I think it could help a player get into immersing themselves a bit more seeing their Leman Russ tanks have "Battle Cannon" rather then "Heavy Anti-Vehicle".
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7974
  • Thanked: 4477 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1491 on: November 05, 2019, 05:34:51 AM »
So while reading through the Crusade campaign and seeing the ground forces Steve designed, it just occurred to me. Would it be possible to, once a unit is designed, be able to rename the components that that unit has? It's purely aesthetic and helps with the immersion, but I figured I'd like to see "Heavy Bolter" rather then "Crew-Served Anti-Personnel" when looking at my space marine. Again, it's purely aesthetic and immersion, but I think it could help a player get into immersing themselves a bit more seeing their Leman Russ tanks have "Battle Cannon" rather then "Heavy Anti-Vehicle".

Yes, that wouldn't be hard to do. I'll add it to the list :)
 
The following users thanked this post: Garfunkel, Viridia, MultiVitamin

Offline Father Tim

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1261
  • Thanked: 159 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1492 on: November 05, 2019, 10:39:08 AM »
I guess another thing is they might make a lot more sense if you had worlds that needed a degree of constant upkeep to keep them terraformed.  For instance, small moons leaking an atmosphere, or some very hostile world constantly releasing toxic gases and/or burning up all of the oxygen.  (maybe burning the oxygen into oxygen difluoride)

This would be very much a long term suggestion, but it might be cool to add as a sortof thing where you would have a large roving fleet of terraformer ships, and then be building/setting up smaller numbers of terraformer installations to keep the planet in good condition without having to go to all of the maintenance trouble.

Okay, but if I have a colony that loses X atm per year, why would I do anything other than build/move/assign enough terraforming installations/modules there to produce equal-to-or-greater-than X atm?

If terraforming has an upkeep cost, the only rational thing to do is assign enough resources to cover the upkeep, and then ignore it forever.  I fail to see where the decision-making, and therefore the fun, is in that scenario.
 

Offline QuakeIV

  • Registered
  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 354
  • Thanked: 31 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1493 on: November 05, 2019, 12:02:37 PM »
Because certain worlds would require more resources allocated before you got them to a point of equilibrium, which would have a flat continuous cost in workers and wealth upkeep that other worlds wouldnt suffer from, and if someone bombed your terraforming installations the world might start dying fairly quickly.  During peacetime the difference might be relatively small, but during bad situations that makes them fairly different from worlds that require no upkeep whatsoever.
 

Offline Father Tim

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1261
  • Thanked: 159 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1494 on: November 05, 2019, 12:24:13 PM »
Okay, but how is that different from Infrastructure?

Flat continuous cost in workers (and therefore reduced wealth generation) -- check.  (Due to the increased Ag & Env sector.)
Other colonies don't (necessarily) suffer the same cost -- check.
Orbital bombardment and/or ground combat can destroy it -- check.

Other than the fact that your Terraforming upkeep might be in space rather than on the ground, I don't see a differenace.
 

Offline QuakeIV

  • Registered
  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 354
  • Thanked: 31 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1495 on: November 05, 2019, 01:37:34 PM »
Well, its not proportional to population for one thing.  It would cost the exact same amount to keep a world terraformed no matter how many people live there.

e:  It would also most likely be much cheaper for a large colony as compared to infrastructure costs, whereas a smaller one would probably be better off just using infrastructure.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2019, 01:39:23 PM by QuakeIV »
 

Offline Coleslaw35

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • Posts: 12
  • Thanked: 19 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1496 on: November 07, 2019, 01:16:58 AM »
Will there be any changes to how troops can be attached to ships (i. e.  for protection in the event of a Tyranid boarding action :^) ) as compared to Aurora as is? Would troops be attachable based on Spare Berths or will there need to be a dedicated "barracks" component, and will it come in varying sizes? If so, how many and of what capacity? Can ships be designated to have a specific attachment of shipboard troops that are automatically "built" alongside the ship?
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7974
  • Thanked: 4477 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1497 on: November 07, 2019, 03:15:54 AM »
Will there be any changes to how troops can be attached to ships (i. e.  for protection in the event of a Tyranid boarding action :^) ) as compared to Aurora as is? Would troops be attachable based on Spare Berths or will there need to be a dedicated "barracks" component, and will it come in varying sizes? If so, how many and of what capacity? Can ships be designated to have a specific attachment of shipboard troops that are automatically "built" alongside the ship?

There are various sizes of troop transport bays. I'm not at home at the moment but I think they start at 100 tons. There is no facility to auto-build troops as part of the ship construction.
 

Offline MultiVitamin

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • M
  • Posts: 49
  • Thanked: 5 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1498 on: November 07, 2019, 05:09:39 AM »
Will there be any changes to how troops can be attached to ships (i. e.  for protection in the event of a Tyranid boarding action :^) ) as compared to Aurora as is? Would troops be attachable based on Spare Berths or will there need to be a dedicated "barracks" component, and will it come in varying sizes? If so, how many and of what capacity? Can ships be designated to have a specific attachment of shipboard troops that are automatically "built" alongside the ship?

There are various sizes of troop transport bays. I'm not at home at the moment but I think they start at 100 tons. There is no facility to auto-build troops as part of the ship construction.

I'm typically not one to do any mathematics but I like to get exact numbers of troops to help paint a better image in my head. So I did some random math and 100 tons troop transport is enough for 1460 troops (rounded up) (when you use the Average Human Weight as 137 lbs).

This also means that Fighters as Transports can hold up to 5480 troops if 400 tons of it is dedicated to 100 ton troop transports.


Hope you all enjoyed my random math moment  :P
 

Offline King-Salomon

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 130
  • Thanked: 26 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1499 on: November 07, 2019, 05:25:51 AM »
I'm typically not one to do any mathematics but I like to get exact numbers of troops to help paint a better image in my head. So I did some random math and 100 tons troop transport is enough for 1460 troops (rounded up) (when you use the Average Human Weight as 137 lbs).

This also means that Fighters as Transports can hold up to 5480 troops if 400 tons of it is dedicated to 100 ton troop transports.


Hope you all enjoyed my random math moment  :P

You really would send trained troops on a spaceship without clothing, armor, weapons, food, equipment... etcpp?  ;D

it is more like 5t per soldier so 100t = 20 marines +/-
« Last Edit: November 07, 2019, 05:29:15 AM by King-Salomon »
 

 

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