Author Topic: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions  (Read 52019 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline misanthropope

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • m
  • Posts: 19
  • Thanked: 4 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #690 on: November 15, 2018, 11:10:50 AM »
On the ordnance factory page, i'd love to have a button to mash that would compute a "missile census", counting the existing missiles by type as well as aggregating the loadout specs of my ships (including those building) by missile type.  if displaying all that data is a pita, just getting supply and demand numbers for one type (via dropdown?) would still be pretty godlike.
 
The following users thanked this post: papent

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7234
  • Thanked: 2370 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #691 on: November 15, 2018, 01:12:25 PM »
On the ordnance factory page, i'd love to have a button to mash that would compute a "missile census", counting the existing missiles by type as well as aggregating the loadout specs of my ships (including those building) by missile type.  if displaying all that data is a pita, just getting supply and demand numbers for one type (via dropdown?) would still be pretty godlike.

The NPRs are doing all of the above in C# Aurora, so they know what missile types to build. Would be relatively easy to show to players too.
 
The following users thanked this post: papent, DIT_grue

Offline Whitecold

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • W
  • Posts: 271
  • Thanked: 59 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #692 on: November 15, 2018, 01:50:05 PM »
Some ideas for tech development:
-Components can be added to design as soon as they are designed. The design cannot be built or locked until all the components have been researched, to you can essentially design a ship, tailor your components in one go and then submit all the projects for research.
-Themes should be able to contain default naming schemes for components. So you can specify your Missile Launchers to be named S{} Torpedo Tube by default, or turn Particle Beams into photon torpedoes. This would also be useful for foreign language themes, and all that is required is a bit of string formatting with the component parameters.
-Components should be able to be used as template for new components, like missiles currently work.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2018, 02:42:00 PM by Whitecold »
 
The following users thanked this post: papent, Titanian, Agoelia

Offline QuakeIV

  • Registered
  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 277
  • Thanked: 24 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #693 on: November 15, 2018, 04:25:09 PM »
It might be a good idea to make info the AI uses as inputs visible to players in general (when the info would be useful to the player), that way there is a way higher chance of noticing if its getting miscalculated (or noticing if the calculations ever break), which would hopefully lead to more reliable AI over the long term.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2018, 04:27:16 PM by QuakeIV »
 

Offline Agoelia

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • A
  • Posts: 6
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #694 on: November 16, 2018, 04:29:28 AM »
Quote from: QuakeIV link=topic=9841. msg111049#msg111049 date=1542320709
It might be a good idea to make info the AI uses as inputs visible to players in general (when the info would be useful to the player), that way there is a way higher chance of noticing if its getting miscalculated (or noticing if the calculations ever break), which would hopefully lead to more reliable AI over the long term.

Could you make an example out of that? I'm not really sure what you mean.
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • J
  • Posts: 869
  • Thanked: 16 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #695 on: November 16, 2018, 01:31:51 PM »
I was thinking the other day about the new command structure of Aurora and about Ground Generals and Space Admirals. I really think that we should use the same Admin Command structure for both of these branches so Admin Commands should be able to hold both High Ranking generals or Fleet admirals. This I think are quite realistic because at the high end of things you will have both of these commands intertwined since they are both equally important and they will need to coordinate their efforts anyway.

Most skills should also work within both branches but that a General give slightly more bonus to ground forces and Admirals slightly more to fleet assets. But at strategic levels I think that both of these should be more or less equally important and competent.

In this way Armies would act as Fleets and you then have as many sub armies/fleets you can attach to each army or fleet. Both Fleets and Armies should be able to have sub fleets and sub army units attached to them, the only difference is that Fleets can only be commanded by Admirals and Armies only commanded by Generals and they both give less of their bonuses to any sub units that is not of their type.

But you should only be able to have Ships in a Sub-Fleet and Ground units in a Sub-Army but you could have a Sub-Army in a Sub-Fleet if you wish.

The point being if I want to simulate a typical US Marin Corp task force I would want to have both ships and ground troops in them. You could have a Sub-Fleet of Assault carriers with a few squadrons of fighters and a full marine brigade of troops. Such a Task-Force would then comprise a Fleet if Assault Carriers with their escorts and support ships attached to an Admin Command led by a Ground Commander. The Sub Fleet would be led by an Admiral and each brigade led by a Brigadier General as a Sub Army Unit attached to the Assault Sub-Fleet.

Might make the power structure a bit more complex but even more fun from RP and also sort of realistic. Do you want your generals or admirals in charge of a specific operation... probably depends on what their objectives are.

Each Admin command could just be designated as Naval or Ground and the game would attach the most appropriate rank to that position. Who outranks who within Navy or Ground is only important due to where they are in the tree... otherwise they are just added based on the command structure of their own internal organisation. This would mean that a Fleet Admiral can be led by a General in one place while commanding a General in another but never at the same time.

Thoughts?!?
« Last Edit: November 16, 2018, 01:37:37 PM by Jorgen_CAB »
 

Offline TMaekler

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 422
  • Thanked: 55 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #696 on: November 19, 2018, 06:56:28 AM »
On the ordnance factory page, i'd love to have a button to mash that would compute a "missile census", counting the existing missiles by type as well as aggregating the loadout specs of my ships (including those building) by missile type.  if displaying all that data is a pita, just getting supply and demand numbers for one type (via dropdown?) would still be pretty godlike.

The NPRs are doing all of the above in C# Aurora, so they know what missile types to build. Would be relatively easy to show to players too.
Hmmm, thinking about a reverse command. In the Fleet command window you can give a fleet the order to replenish missing missiles from planetary (or whatever) stockpile. Calculating, that the stockpiles wouldn't be enough, is easy for the computer. Auto-generating a production task which builds the missing missiles - would be a nice addon ;-)
 

Offline Barkhorn

  • Captain
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 492
  • Thanked: 60 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #697 on: November 20, 2018, 01:32:25 PM »
Suggestion:

Make terraforming less braindead.  Right now, the terraforming system is really detailed, but it always boils down to the same actions as far as the player is concerned.  Add 0.1atm oxygen, remove poisons, add greenhouse/anti-greenhouse gas, remove excess pressure.  It's cool that the atmospheres are actually tracked and all, but there's no choices being made here.

I propose making terraforming actually involve some choices or trade-offs.  Maybe Mercury would be better not terraformed; solar panels work better with no atmosphere in the way.  Titan is better with it's cold and dense atmosphere; computation is more efficient the colder it is, thanks to Landauer's Limit, so a thick, cold atmosphere makes a great heatsink.  Make us have to choose between a habitable planet or a planet that's good for supercomputers or solar panels.
 

Offline Whitecold

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • W
  • Posts: 271
  • Thanked: 59 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #698 on: November 20, 2018, 03:24:02 PM »
Suggestion:

Make terraforming less braindead.  Right now, the terraforming system is really detailed, but it always boils down to the same actions as far as the player is concerned.  Add 0.1atm oxygen, remove poisons, add greenhouse/anti-greenhouse gas, remove excess pressure.  It's cool that the atmospheres are actually tracked and all, but there's no choices being made here.

I propose making terraforming actually involve some choices or trade-offs.  Maybe Mercury would be better not terraformed; solar panels work better with no atmosphere in the way.  Titan is better with it's cold and dense atmosphere; computation is more efficient the colder it is, thanks to Landauer's Limit, so a thick, cold atmosphere makes a great heatsink.  Make us have to choose between a habitable planet or a planet that's good for supercomputers or solar panels.
I would not bother too much about that. If anything terraforming should become more detailed in terms of opportunities. You should need some way to bind/extract harmful gasses, and you need something to release useful gasses to build up an atmosphere, instead of producing gas out of nothing.
So some planets may be inhospitable, but have the right resources to make them hospitable, while others might just be chunks of rocks you cannot possibly give an atmosphere.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7234
  • Thanked: 2370 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #699 on: November 20, 2018, 03:34:53 PM »
There are a number of changes in C# that affect terraforming, including hydrosphere requirements, planetary capacities, speed dependent on planet size, tide-locked planets have different temperature effects, etc.. While the mechanics are similar except for evaporation/condensation, there are a lot more factors in the decision of where to terraform.
 
The following users thanked this post: Viridia

Offline Hazard

  • Commander
  • *********
  • H
  • Posts: 347
  • Thanked: 28 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #700 on: November 20, 2018, 04:24:13 PM »
Still hoping for the inclusion of biosphere requirements and adjustment.

That, the hydrosphere and the atmosphere are all surface based. Messing with the magnetosphere would be... complex.
 

Offline Barkhorn

  • Captain
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 492
  • Thanked: 60 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #701 on: November 20, 2018, 07:34:28 PM »
There are a number of changes in C# that affect terraforming, including hydrosphere requirements, planetary capacities, speed dependent on planet size, tide-locked planets have different temperature effects, etc.. While the mechanics are similar except for evaporation/condensation, there are a lot more factors in the decision of where to terraform.
That just changes what planets are worth it though, there's still basically no decisions being made during the terraforming process.  Once a player has decided to terraform a world, the process is the same as it was on VB6.  Some worlds might take longer, some might be quicker, but the point is that there is still going to be an optimum way to terraform.  I am suggesting that there be trade-offs.  For example thinning Titan's atmosphere and warming it up will make it better for human habitation, but worse for running super-computers or any industry that generates a lot of waste heat.  There is a trade-off going on here that doesn't happen in either the old system or the new system.  It wouldn't just be "Do I terraform this world?" but rather "Do I terraform this world, and if so, in what way?"
 
The following users thanked this post: papent

Offline amram

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • a
  • Posts: 13
  • Thanked: 11 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #702 on: November 20, 2018, 08:23:13 PM »
Can we get two additional settings for Point Defence Modes? 

Specifically minimum salvo count per increment, and a minimum salvo size.

Right now, if I setup a missile defence with say,  (1v1 PD Mode 1270), then I literally spend one missile per inbound, even if there is just one inbound, and I have dozens of gauss turrets.  I waste missiles, lose fights I should have won.

I can not use the system at all, and manually fire on large/excess salvos so that the gauss defences can handle what remains.  This is incredibly tedious and not fun, but effective and I survive larger/longer attacks.

Could we just take the tedium almost entirely out and allow specifying how many salvos must be incoming before the FC cares, or how many missiles must be in any given salvo?

If I had gauss turrets that reliably stop 9+ per salvo, and enough turrets to engage 8 salvos per increment, then I really only need missiles for salvos larger than 9, or more numerous than 8 for any given increment.

Its not OP, because nothing stops me from stacking an ungodly amount of gauss and running a single stack formation - I get missile immunity with no ammunition expenditure at all.  Game the system with a very enticing civilian hull with an absurd amount of CIWS perhaps.

It just enables a more hands off approach to missile defence, letting the ships defend themselves with an efficiency closer to if you were fully hands on, minus the tedium.
 
The following users thanked this post: Jorgen_CAB, Titanian, Agoelia

Offline Garfunkel

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 991
  • Thanked: 72 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #703 on: November 21, 2018, 07:37:27 AM »
For example thinning Titan's atmosphere and warming it up will make it better for human habitation, but worse for running super-computers or any industry that generates a lot of waste heat.  There is a trade-off going on here that doesn't happen in either the old system or the new system.  It wouldn't just be "Do I terraform this world?" but rather "Do I terraform this world, and if so, in what way?"
But that makes absolutely no sense. It does not matter how much more solar energy you get on Mercury without atmosphere or how much easier it is to run supercomputer on Titan if humans would still need specialized infrastructure to live there. Any savings you get on energy or cooling would be offset by the cost of having to import infra to accommodate colonists. The value of a colony cost 0 world is priceless. I do understand what you're proposing, making the details of terraforming a decision, but there already is a decision on whether to terraform a body in the first place and with the additional new rules, that decision is a bit more complicated than before.
 
The following users thanked this post: Agoelia

Offline Person012345

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 467
  • Thanked: 16 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #704 on: November 21, 2018, 09:30:33 AM »
There are a number of changes in C# that affect terraforming, including hydrosphere requirements, planetary capacities, speed dependent on planet size, tide-locked planets have different temperature effects, etc.. While the mechanics are similar except for evaporation/condensation, there are a lot more factors in the decision of where to terraform.
That just changes what planets are worth it though, there's still basically no decisions being made during the terraforming process.  Once a player has decided to terraform a world, the process is the same as it was on VB6.  Some worlds might take longer, some might be quicker, but the point is that there is still going to be an optimum way to terraform.  I am suggesting that there be trade-offs.  For example thinning Titan's atmosphere and warming it up will make it better for human habitation, but worse for running super-computers or any industry that generates a lot of waste heat.  There is a trade-off going on here that doesn't happen in either the old system or the new system.  It wouldn't just be "Do I terraform this world?" but rather "Do I terraform this world, and if so, in what way?"
I don't think wht you're asking for makes that much sense. I wouldn't mind a little more detail to the process, but realistically I've only ever really seen terraforming proposed as making a planet more habitable. Indeed, there's a hint in the very word,"terraforming". I haven't seen it seriously argued that it might be a good idea to turn planet earth into a giant snowball or getting rid of all the atmosphere and I don't think this would really add much to gameplay to make this decision. You'd end up just having a bunch of template planets for specific purposes and the process would be identical.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2018, 09:33:17 AM by Person012345 »
 

 

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