Author Topic: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions  (Read 135139 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Father Tim

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1231
  • Thanked: 155 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1515 on: November 09, 2019, 01:23:13 PM »
If possible a Ship Mass driver Module would be grat :) make mining ships so much easyer to handle  ;D


I've been lobbying for the opposite for quite some time.  I think Aurora should remove mass drivers entirely and move everything by ship so my -- and Xenoscepter's -- privateers and pirates and militia and such have much more to do.  As I understand it, mass drivers were only added because the AI to handle civilian freighters wasn't up to the job of regular mineral collection.

But if Aurora is going to keep mass drivers, it desperately needs to make their packets detectable & stealable in deep space.  FAC squadrons with big nets to come along behind them and scoop 'em up, or freighters with oversize doors to fly in front of them and very slightly slow down so the minerals load themselves.
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • J
  • Posts: 1081
  • Thanked: 84 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1516 on: November 09, 2019, 02:11:02 PM »
If possible a Ship Mass driver Module would be grat :) make mining ships so much easyer to handle  ;D


I've been lobbying for the opposite for quite some time.  I think Aurora should remove mass drivers entirely and move everything by ship so my -- and Xenoscepter's -- privateers and pirates and militia and such have much more to do.  As I understand it, mass drivers were only added because the AI to handle civilian freighters wasn't up to the job of regular mineral collection.

But if Aurora is going to keep mass drivers, it desperately needs to make their packets detectable & stealable in deep space.  FAC squadrons with big nets to come along behind them and scoop 'em up, or freighters with oversize doors to fly in front of them and very slightly slow down so the minerals load themselves.

I agree... a way to interact with them and an option to play without them where the civilian ships move minerals from civilian complexes automatically to the closest colony. The production could still be somewhat abstracted and the cargo on ships going between colony and base should then load based on the type of minerals complexes produce.

It is sometimes interesting to play campaigns where you imagine a world where mass-drivers moving minerals is not a thing.
 

Offline Bremen

  • Captain
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 512
  • Thanked: 56 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1517 on: November 09, 2019, 03:46:51 PM »
Okay, but now you have the situation where a guy whose job is supposed to be fighting is worse at it than a guy whose job is cleaning the gunk out of the soup nozzles.

What we've seen so far from Steve's AARs (admittedly quite a small sample size) is that dedicated boarding troops tear through defending crew at a ratio of 80 or 100 to 1.  If we make defenders any weaker, they are going to inflict zero casualties.  We're already at the point where 90% of attacker's casualties are from the drop attempt rather than fighting on board.

To be fair, in Steve's AAR the attackers seem to have a significant tech advantage. They also tore apart actual ground troops with vehicle support. Assuming equal tech the fight between boarders and crew might be less one-sided.
 

Offline SerBeardian

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • Posts: 18
  • Thanked: 12 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1518 on: November 09, 2019, 09:25:55 PM »
Not sure if already mentioned, but I would very much like to be able to self-destruct missile salvos from the main system map, since trying to figure out which set of 10 mines out of 300 identical ones in the system is the one that just blew it's load all over the enemy fleet from the "missiles in flight" screen is pretty much impossible.

Having mines sitting there that you think have payload but don't is rather dangerous to your empire security.
 
The following users thanked this post: TheBawkHawk

Online Nori

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • N
  • Posts: 19
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1519 on: November 10, 2019, 06:22:27 PM »
Any of you play that old 4x game Stars!  ?
The way they did mass drivers is each tech allowed you to send packets at a specific speed (and the recipient needed to be able to handle that). So maybe you could send at what was in the game warp 10. You could intercept them by going faster, or simply intercepting from the side or in front. Worked pretty well I thought.
 

Offline clement

  • Pulsar 4x Dev
  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • *
  • c
  • Posts: 116
  • Thanked: 10 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1520 on: November 11, 2019, 06:42:47 AM »
Any of you play that old 4x game Stars!  ?
The way they did mass drivers is each tech allowed you to send packets at a specific speed (and the recipient needed to be able to handle that). So maybe you could send at what was in the game warp 10. You could intercept them by going faster, or simply intercepting from the side or in front. Worked pretty well I thought.

Yes Stars! was a great game.
Their mass driver implementation was interesting.
I liked their build queue system. You could queue up a certain amount of each building as recurring each build cycle and then put extra build items behind those and all excess build points would go to the extra items once the recurring items were done.
 

Offline Father Tim

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1231
  • Thanked: 155 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1521 on: November 11, 2019, 04:54:45 PM »
Yes Stars! was a great game.
Their mass driver implementation was interesting.
I liked their build queue system. You could queue up a certain amount of each building as recurring each build cycle and then put extra build items behind those and all excess build points would go to the extra items once the recurring items were done.

This seems like it would differ from Aurora's implementation in that the player has to do the math instead of the game.  Instead of setting 10% of your production to build more mines, 10% to more factories, and 10% to research facilities, you'd set it to one mine, one factory, and one research facility per production cycle. . . and then realize that that leaves no excess production since a research facility is twenty times the size of the other two.  You'd also have to figure out when your production capacity doubles and change all the numbers.  Aurora makes this a lot easier, but still suffers from the problem.
 

Offline MultiVitamin

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • M
  • Posts: 42
  • Thanked: 5 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1522 on: November 12, 2019, 01:32:02 AM »
Actually, would it be possible to make research trees for the Ground Force components? Just generic ones to increase their effectiveness, number of shots, etc? Or maybe make it so that we can design them?

So for example there'd be a few fields

Type - Anti-Personnel, Anti-Vehicle, Bombardment, Anti-Aircraft, Autocannon, or HQ (CE would stay the same)

Size - (Light, Medium, Heavy, Super-Heavy, Ultra-Heavy)

AP - (Dropdown menu from 1 to 50)

Damage - (Dropdown menu from 1 to 60)

Shots - (Dropdown menu from 1 to 6)

CIWS - (Can be blank, choose from pre-made CIWS made for ships, just resized maybe?)

FFD - (Dropdown menu from 1 to 3)


And various research could upgrade the ranges of these higher and higher. Just a suggestion I thought of while anticipating the renaming of components when a unit is designed, thought of "why not just build the components with research to make them better, and have that be designable?". It adds a lot more variety and player decision making for Ground Forces, like when you design the weapons, powerplants, defense, engines, etc for ships, just not as intense. Also helps solve the "Can't think of anything for Ultra-Heavy" problem you mention about having a while ago in (I think) a different thread.

If no on the designing the components themselves, what about just research to improve components?

Actually thinking on this, if steve does add more esoteric components later, this might not work out. I also don't fully know all of the research techs already in place for ground units other then the bio-enhancements for infantry.
 

 

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