Author Topic: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions  (Read 77958 times)

Kelewan and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Father Tim

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1042
  • Thanked: 85 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1095 on: March 11, 2019, 11:52:26 PM »
Can't you already do drop tanks with tractor beams and tankers that are nothing more than gigantic fuel tanks?

If you're talking Space Shuttle-type external fuel tanks, then yes.  If you're thinking Conformal Fuel Tanks (the in-flight-jettisonable ones, anyway), then no.

And if you want to put them on a 500 ton small craft, the mass penalty for a tractor beam is significant.
 

Target Drone

  • Guest
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1096 on: March 12, 2019, 06:33:49 AM »
Quote from: Steve Walmsley link=topic=9841. msg113128#msg113128 date=1552299284
The downside is a more UI, more complexity (including for the AI) and more difficulty for the player in comprehending the potential ranges of his ships at different speeds.  The question is whether the game play benefit of having cruising speed is worth the complexity.

I think KISS would be to add an overboost or 'afterburner' mode to engines; similar to how spinals bump the focal size up, overboost rating just boosts the engine power VS efficiency rating up a level or several(maybe research dependent, set in the engine design), but probably with much worse efficiency than would normally be expected(say power goes up by X levels but efficiency loss is 1. 5 or 2x that or something); thus a ship gets a standard and overboost value for speed and range(and thermal sig; a overboosting engine is probably much hotter than it's engine power would suggest), and you have to decide if it's worth investing the research into boostable engines in addition to deciding of it's worth the fuel to use them; not just for speed but also the boost to evasion VS enemy fire.

Simple, straight forward, and uses existing mechanics and concepts already in the game.

Also, I haven't been able to find an answer either way as to existing C# mechanics/plans, so apologies if I've missed it, but I'm hoping atleast some ordinance weapons will be able to do damage in space combat, even if it's really short range and low damage, for consistency and roleplay; I know you can build multirole fighters by putting ordinance pods into box launchers, but it'd be a bit odd if your air superiority fighter can kill enemy fighters all day, but once it's above the atmosphere it's weapons stop working.  And I like the idea of planetary fighter wings launching a desperate counterattack against landing troop ships or a standoff orbital bombardment or the ilk, rather than being completely helpless.  Probably a long shot, but maybe something for the future.
 

Offline Graham

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • Posts: 33
  • Thanked: 12 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1097 on: March 12, 2019, 08:19:11 PM »
I personally like the idea of adding a fuel efficiency curve to engines, but not enough to delay the C# release, so probably a 1.1 feature :).

It would make a lot of sense, since in fluidic space resistance would increase at higher speeds. Also I think it would add some tactical depth, as fuel consumption at flank speed has been something captains have historically had to deal with, especially for commerce raiders etc.

I would suggest for simplicity that there is no curve on engines below 0.5 modifier.
 
The following users thanked this post: Titanian

Online Resident Evil

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • R
  • Posts: 55
  • Thanked: 2 times
Link to suggestion for Planetary 'Air Raid Shelters' suggestion.
« Reply #1098 on: March 19, 2019, 01:52:08 PM »
Just a reminder for Steve in the future, that the suggestion was made for the ability to be available to create civilian 'air raid' shelters in some form or other for protection of the civilian population in the event of planetary bombardment.

Here's the link ---->   http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=10300.0

Cheers

ZG
 

Online Resident Evil

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • R
  • Posts: 55
  • Thanked: 2 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1099 on: March 27, 2019, 11:46:20 AM »
Hello again.

This is a re-post as I originally posted in the wrong place apparently. nvm :)

I assume that C# is going to implement initiative still so I'd like to make the following observation/suggestion.

At the moment, I have to set Fighter squadrons initiative to a higher setting to get them to dock with the carrier. What is somewhat irritating is that every time they dock and relaunch, the initiative gets set back to 100 again. Now I can get round this by setting the carrier initiative lower than 100; so the fighters can dock. But still, fighters are naturally agile, so it would be nice if the code could be modified so they retain their initiative after docking/launch.

I'm not sure if this is practical, because I suspect the initiative is assigned to the Task Group, and when the fighter dock the Task Group no longer exists. Hmmmm..... Perhaps, rather than defaulting to 100, fighter squadrons could default to their highest possible initiative instead upon creation.

Anyway, just a suggestion. It may be too much trouble to implement.

ZG
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7584
  • Thanked: 3321 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1100 on: March 27, 2019, 11:57:23 AM »
Hello again.

This is a re-post as I originally posted in the wrong place apparently. nvm :)

I assume that C# is going to implement initiative still so I'd like to make the following observation/suggestion.

At the moment, I have to set Fighter squadrons initiative to a higher setting to get them to dock with the carrier. What is somewhat irritating is that every time they dock and relaunch, the initiative gets set back to 100 again. Now I can get round this by setting the carrier initiative lower than 100; so the fighters can dock. But still, fighters are naturally agile, so it would be nice if the code could be modified so they retain their initiative after docking/launch.

I'm not sure if this is practical, because I suspect the initiative is assigned to the Task Group, and when the fighter dock the Task Group no longer exists. Hmmmm..... Perhaps, rather than defaulting to 100, fighter squadrons could default to their highest possible initiative instead upon creation.

Anyway, just a suggestion. It may be too much trouble to implement.

ZG

Initiative has been replaced by Reaction Bonus for C#. That won't change due to fighter launch or recovery.

http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg97342#msg97342
 

Online Resident Evil

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • R
  • Posts: 55
  • Thanked: 2 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1101 on: March 27, 2019, 12:14:08 PM »
Will that not still give rise to problems with fighters landing if their reaction bonus is lower than the carriers?? Unless you give a 'reaction bonus' bonus to smaller craft, so they have a higher reaction bonus than the carriers.

I tend to put higher ranked officers in charge of carriers than in fighters (not least because there's just so many more of them).

ZG
 

Offline totos_totidis

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • Posts: 13
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1102 on: March 31, 2019, 08:04:33 AM »
I have an idea. What about implementing nuclear artillery? The Damage could scale with warhead technology. The units when in combat could generate a bit of fallout and dust. Tactical nuclear weapons could be useful for ground invasions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_artillery
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_ballistic_missile
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)
 
The following users thanked this post: Barkhorn

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • J
  • Posts: 955
  • Thanked: 70 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1103 on: April 12, 2019, 10:09:04 AM »
About components and research from that other thread in the suggestion forum.

It has been suggested a few times that perhaps there could be a way to use components in ship designs before they are actually researched. This would make designing ships a bit simpler without having to resort to SM to research them and then remove the research to research them normally after you decided on what components to use for your designs.

My suggestion is to simply be able to use components for design even if they are not researched. In the design window you should be able to toggle between having the list including both researched and not researched components or only just researched components (should be the default view).

Any ship design that have a none researched component can't obviously be used unless all components in it is properly researched.

This would make it slightly easier to design ships without resorting to SM to test out components.
 
The following users thanked this post: CheaterEater, Scandinavian, JacenHan, Barkhorn, Kytuzian

Offline MultiVitamin

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • M
  • Posts: 23
  • Thanked: 3 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1104 on: April 12, 2019, 12:45:59 PM »
About components and research from that other thread in the suggestion forum.

It has been suggested a few times that perhaps there could be a way to use components in ship designs before they are actually researched. This would make designing ships a bit simpler without having to resort to SM to research them and then remove the research to research them normally after you decided on what components to use for your designs.

My suggestion is to simply be able to use components for design even if they are not researched. In the design window you should be able to toggle between having the list including both researched and not researched components or only just researched components (should be the default view).

Any ship design that have a none researched component can't obviously be used unless all components in it is properly researched.

This would make it slightly easier to design ships without resorting to SM to test out components.

So like a blueprint/concept design type of thing?
 

Offline TMaekler

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 455
  • Thanked: 59 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1105 on: April 15, 2019, 10:16:46 AM »
I think I suggesting something in that line a while ago. Basically you design the components you want to experiment with and "virtualize" them with an additional button (instead of sending them to research you send them to the virtual pool). When you then design the ship you can activate "virtual modules" and test around to make your ship fit as you would like, then mark the virtual modules you need and send them to research. Once they are researched you only have to replace them in your ship design - and voila.
 
The following users thanked this post: Awazruk

Offline MarcAFK

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1860
  • Thanked: 84 times
  • ...it's so simple an idiot could have devised it..
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1106 on: April 17, 2019, 09:50:19 PM »
Would be cool if you could do exercises with your warship using these blueprints.
Design a ship using tech you don't have or components which arent ready yet and spawn it into a system for wargames, pitting your ships against it will gain them experience and training.
Damage done to your real ships would have to be undone of course, all crew deaths being fake, etc.
" 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 tobijon

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • t
  • Posts: 45
  • Thanked: 2 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1107 on: April 18, 2019, 01:49:54 AM »
Would be cool if you could do exercises with your warship using these blueprints.
Design a ship using tech you don't have or components which arent ready yet and spawn it into a system for wargames, pitting your ships against it will gain them experience and training.
Damage done to your real ships would have to be undone of course, all crew deaths being fake, etc.

that goes a bit too far I think
 

Offline MarcAFK

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1860
  • Thanked: 84 times
  • ...it's so simple an idiot could have devised it..
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1108 on: April 18, 2019, 05:39:40 AM »
Well, you can already do simulated wargames by spawning warships and either blowing them to bits, or having them fire ineffectually at your own ships causing minor damage but massively increasing crew grade with just a few minutes of single points of damage against the armour.
But the first case is annoying to setup, and the second case is obviously exploitative cheese.
Adding an ingame system to do proper wargames for training would be immersive and perhaps reduce player exploits. Though thinking about it perhaps you could have an alternative to 'task force training' with a 'wargame training' button where all ships in a system on training are assigned to different teams and taken over by the AI for simulated assaults against each other. 
Grade increases shouldn't be as high as actual combat, and perhaps be limited to a fraction of what can be achieved with real combat, but it might be a nice feature.
" 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 alex_brunius

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1002
  • Thanked: 43 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1109 on: April 18, 2019, 05:46:45 AM »
Id like to see training of missile ships requiring actually firing a few live missiles and training of Carrier require flying the fighters, as well as training containing a few parts of accelerating to maximum speed.

This could have interesting impacts for intelligence if your enemies or future enemies monitoring the system are able to observe capabilities like ship speeds, warhead strength and speed/size of missiles/fighters.
 
The following users thanked this post: Bughunter

 

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