Suggestions Thread for v2.0

[Jorgen_CAB]

>> Sure... you can end up with a transport sitting there indefinitely as it tries to pick up something that will never be built 

How about adding a cut off condition/s? "75% load OR 180 days have passed "?

A number of days perhaps... but it should then be a condition you add. You can't know how long you are ready to wait for the production to finish. I would not consider this to be very important depending on the time to implement the entire order condition.

[Jorgen_CAB]

On the same note... I would like something similar for civilian pick up of installations as well. A specific supply order that simply add everything above a certain level to the supply of a specific item.

As it is now... if you have a planet that builds Automines for shipment you need to manually update the supply or you run the risk of trader trying to pick somehing up that is not there if you put a supply number higher than what is available.

It would in many cases be allot more convenient to instead specify what you want to be left on a planet and everything else are advertised as being supplied for the civilians to puck up. I would likely use this all the time of it was possible. Very similar to the reserve level of minerals.

In fact... this could also tie into the above suggestion as well... ships are allowed to pick up any Construction factories produced above say 500 on a specific world.

If anything like this was implemented it would be far more easy to handle automization of resource and installation flows without having to constantly update the routes other than just add ships if and when resources are not moved fast enough or remove ships if they are not moving around enough but are just sitting around waiting.

[QuakeIV]

It probably shouldn’t so much be a cutoff condition as a warning message, if anything were added.  it’s not like you want the ship to come back later

[wedgebert]

Bouncing off the post regarding "Freighters waiting on cargo for X number of days" a few posts back. I'd love a more robust Order system that combines the standard orders with primary/secondary/conditional orders

First, is the concept of a mission. This is just a series of orders like we currently have. Move here, pick up stuff, move there, drop off, repeat. However each specific order in the mission is allowed to have its own conditions set if desired. Additionally, you can set what to do if the conditions are not met.

Second, and this one would be nice even outside of this whole proposal. Any of the numerical conditions "Fuel < 30%, MSP < 20%, etc" are collapsed into "Fuel < X%" and "MSP < X%" where the player can pick any value they want. This would give a shorter list to choose from and allow players to be more cautious (< 80% fuel) or reckless (< 5% MSP) as they desire.

So the current orders for a freighter might read

1. Move to Earth
2. Pickup Infrastructure
  C1. Cargo holds < 100% full AND Planet Infrastructure > 0 THEN WAIT
  C2. Cargo holds 100% full OR 10 days have past THEN NEXT ORDER
3. Move to Venus
4. Unload

All that gets wrapped in a box and displayed in the ship's mission list (Let's say the user named it Build Up Venus). This mission can also have its own conditions set on it. This Build Up Venus mission might have the following conditions. Unlike the specific order conditions, these are checked every time the system processes (as often as it checks for conditional orders currently)

Mission: Build Up Venus
 C1: Infrastructure on Venus > 10,000 THEN Finish Mission AND set new mission Return To Base
 C2: Hostile Contact In System THEN Stop Mission and set new mission Return To Base

The RTB mission is just
1. Move to Earth
2. Unload all
3. Refuel
4. Send message "Freighter awaiting orders at Earth'

Primary and Secondary orders would fit in the same mission list with the conditions "If no current mission THEN execute this mission"

Finally, conditional orders would be slightly separate. Same system, but they'd appear either always on top of the mission list, or in a list right above it. The difference here is that these mission conditions are always checked, even if another mission is currently underway.

To use a more complex scenario, let's use a geo/grav survey ship. Its mission set might look like

CM1. Check For Overhaul
  C1: Fuel < 40% OR MSP < 40%
  1. Stop current mission
  2. Set mission "Return for Overhaul"

CM2: Check for Hostile Contacts
  C1: Hostile contact in system
  1: Stop current mission
  2: Set course for nearest friendly system
  3: Send message 'Survey ship in danger'

1. Do Grav Survey
  C1: Has no current mission
  C2: System has unsurveyed grav points
  1: Survey nearest 3 grav points

2. Do Geological Survey
  C1: Has no current mission
  C2: System has unsurveyed geological targets
  1: Survey nearest 10 geo locations.

3: Return For Overhaul
  C1: Ignore (Do not process this mission, it must be set either by another mission or manually)
  1: Set course for home base
  2: Send message 'Survey ship returning from %system name% for overhaul
  3: Perform overhaul

4: Idle
  1: Send message "Survey ship has no orders"
  2: Wait 30 days
  3: Send message "Survey ship going to sleep"
  4: Wait forever

So this would accomplish what the current system does, but has a few benefits.

1: Ideally these orders would be savable into a template which can be copied to fleets and tweaked as necessary.
2: We can combine many of the conditions into a single mission (like the overhaul, which normally takes up both your conditional orders)
3: You can have extra conditional orders and more complicated ones. Fleets on training missions could refuel/overhaul as needed, or return to base/tanker to refuel and activate shields if hostiles interrupt them. Tankers could automatically distribute fuel around a system by having a series of "Move to X and unload fuel" orders based on target fuel levels (might take more work though).
4: Missions could have state attached to them, so a hostile contact might send your survey ship back home, but you could tell it to return to the original system and Resume Mission.
5: Consolidates the various order types (standard, primary/secondary, conditional) into a single system which can make things easier from a developer perspective (of which I am one), a UI designer (since you only have one UI to implement) and a player perspective (again, single system to learn and understand, even if it's more complicated)

And importantly, it could grow over time. Conditions can be added in one place and apply to any mission type. Same with orders, now conditional orders have full access to anything normal orders can do (within reason given it's hard to set destinations when you don't know what system you'll be in). But a conditional order could tell a freighter to kill its transponder and slow down if the enemy is far enough away to avoid detection, but move at full speed if it's closer.

You could even add in more advanced functionality like having an order to "Launch parasite group X and set their mission to Engage Enemy" which tells the fighters to activate shields and move towards nearest enemy contact.

It would be a ton of work, and it's basically a limited scripting engine. But I think it would eliminate a lot of the repetitive "paperwork", especially for common tasks like tanker->harvester interactions and survey ships. Players could build up and trade order templates, so when you start a new game, you can just build some survey ships, import their orders and go. No more going to each ship and selecting "Survey Nearest", "If Fuel < 30%", etc.

This has been my Ted Talk and I think it was partly finally typed out just to delay having to go play Overwatch 2 with my friends.

[Ghrathryn]

One hopefully fairly minor addition that could be useful for people following along with forum let's plays or wanting to try duplicating a ground formation from the "C# Bureau of Design" subforum.

Please add a bit of code to the "Temp as Text" in the Ground Force Formation Templates screen to output the type, armour and components for units.

EG: At present I've got a Line Infantry Battalion formation set up and the Temp as Text gives me:

Code: [Select]

Infantry Battalion
Transport Size: 4,997 tons
Build Cost: 120.2 BP
4x Infantry - Supply Team
1x Infantry - Headquarters Squad
24x Infantry - Machine Gun Team
24x Infantry - Anti-Tank Team
24x Infantry - Bombard Team
16x Infantry - Anti-Air Team
2x Infantry - Forward Fire Director
24x Infantry - Sniper
420x Infantry - Rifleman
12x M12 Striker
While most of that particular unit is fairly easy to figure out give it's nearly purely 'Infantry' of different types and I've named them as such, other, vehicle heavy units, can be a bit more annoying to work out from that.  Maybe something like this would be useful:

Code: [Select]

Infantry Battalion
Transport Size: 4,997 tons
Build Cost: 120.2 BP
4x Infantry - Supply Team (INF, LIA, LOG)
1x Infantry - Headquarters Squad (INF, LIA, HQ - 5k)
24x Infantry - Machine Gun Team (INF, LIA, CAP)
24x Infantry - Anti-Tank Team (INF, LIA, LAV)
24x Infantry - Bombard Team (INF, LIA, LB)
16x Infantry - Anti-Air Team (INF, LIA, LAA)
2x Infantry - Forward Fire Director (INF, LIA, FFD)
24x Infantry - Sniper (INF, LIA, PWI)
420x Infantry - Rifleman (INF, LIA, PW)
12x M12 Striker (VEH, LVA, MAC/CAP)
This is probably more for people trying to decipher what a randomly named vehicle unit is actually running more than the general player, but it could be a useful bit of UI tweaking for them or those trying to get feedback on ground units when people otherwise can't actually tell what a full unit is without the person having to post each unit design in addition to the force design.

[RaidersOfTheVerge]

Can the ground unit list in the Load Ground Unit list be sorted the same way they are in the Ground Forces screen?

I never want to load the 1st of everything, but often want to load several Geo/Xeno/Marine/PDC units on the same transport.

[RaidersOfTheVerge]

Is there a reason that a shipyard with 6 slipways takes much longer to upgrade itself (using continual capacity) than one with a single slipway?
Sure you are adding more capacity, but you also are using more capacity.

[Jorgen_CAB]

Is there a reason that a shipyard with 6 slipways takes much longer to upgrade itself (using continual capacity) than one with a single slipway?
Sure you are adding more capacity, but you also are using more capacity.

The yard have the same modifying capacity no matter the number of slips it have. So, the more slips there is the longer it take to add increase the size of the yard.

[mike2R]

This is a QoL suggestion to reduce the number of clicks needed to set up civilian shipping contracts.

Currently there are 2 drop downs and 3 panels of information, with buttons at the bottom.  When quantities are entered, this is done in separate popup windows.  I think this could all be replaced with a single panel.

There aren't all that many installations in the game - they fit easily on screen without scrolling.  So rather than have to choose the one you want with drop downs, just have them all listed no matter whether the selected colony has them present.

Then you just have columns for the Quantity Present, the Demand Amount, Demand Assigned, Supply Amount, Supply Assigned.  And have the Supply Amount and Demand Amount be directly editable - just click into them, and edit the numbers as desired. Like setting the Maximum Atm on the Environment window. 

You'd only need the Scrap Installation button still at the bottom, and all the current functionality would be there, and it would require a lot fewer clicks to use.

[mike2R]

One very minor thing that I've meant to suggest for ages:  The differentiation between Habitable Worlds and Low Colony Cost Worlds is at colony cost 2.  Anything below that is classified as Habitable, and is coloured in blue rather than cyan.

As soon as you research the first level of Colony Cost Reduction, all previously cost 2 worlds drop a little below that, and get classed as Habitable - it makes the different colouring, particularly on the galaxy map, a lot less useful. 

I suggest setting the Habitable classification level at just below the tech adjusted score for a base colony cost 2 world.  Or just dropping it by a chunk if that's easier.

[Blacklight]

Any chances of the carronades damage drop off being levelled a bit in coming updates?

Currently it does have alot of non weapon related buffs which are fair to consider, but having its drop off so anemic makes it a near useless weapon outside of jump point ambushes i feel.   If it had a flat or at least a much softer damage curve i think it would become much more versatile in use while still staying fairly balanced against other weapons capabilities and its other uses.   
a 30cm carronade does 24 damage every 60 seconds vs a 12cm laser doing 4 damage every 10 at Capacitor 2. 
so 450 tons to do 24 damage every 60 seconds vs 200 tons to do 24 damage every 60 seconds. 
but at 40000kms its 450 tons to do 6 damage every 60 seconds vs 200 tons to do 12 damage every 60 seconds.   quite literally double for half the hull space and practically the same cost. 

I think it should be changed to a flat damage curve, so that the carronade does 20 damage at 40000km for 450 tons while the laser would need 2 at 400tons total to deal 24 damage every 60 seconds.   The laser is still superior, which you do pay a cost in research and resources, but get a significantly more space efficient and still more effective weapon with a much better armour penetration profile than a carronade.   The carronade would make up for it by being simpler to research, slow firing and less space efficient.   It would also allow it to be used as a more general shock weapon rather than an incredibly short ranged one off weapon. 

alternatively i wouldnt mind some kind of macro cannon type weapon that replicates the carronade but a bit weaker or more expensive to research which has the carronades ability minus the incredibly drop off.   But i believe the carronade should have this so its not purely a jump point ambush ship or similar. 

Edit: fixed a typo

[nuclearslurpee]

Plasma is already pretty strong, to the point where I have advocated for bumping up the RP cost by 50% due to how incredibly strong it is for ground forces. I think some people get too obsessed with comparing raw DPI/DPS and neglect the critical importance of a powerful alpha strike, not even just for jump point defense but in general.

As it currently stands, plasma works the same as a laser of the same caliber with infrared (i.e., minimum) range tech, except for the armor penetration gradient profile, but it is half the RP cost and with the same BP cost it is pretty cheap to build too (note that your 12cm laser will be comparatively more expensive if you want to get the same range, since the weapon cost scales as sqrt(power) but linearly with range modifier). That's already pretty damn good, and it gives plasma a very well-defined niche as a cheap beam weapon with a high alpha strike. It will not be a very good primary weapon type, but there is no reason why every beam weapon should be viable as a primary weapon. What I like to do with plasma is use them as secondary or emergency beam weapons to support a missile-based or carrier-based fleet. In particular you can combine them with the also very cheap basic 10cm railguns for point defense as carrier escorts, system patrol ships, emergency jump point defenders, commerce raiders, and numerous other roles besides main fleet combatants.

If you want to go beam-primary, then plasma is simply not the correct choice in most cases, you should be using lasers, railguns, or particle weapons and probably Gauss turrets for PD. But not every doctrine or situation calls for a beam-primary battle fleet and it is these other cases where plasma is highly effective. And again, this is already on top of the tremendous benefits for ground forces particularly if you are a bit cheesy and use a PWL-heavy infantry arm which benefits the most from "over-researching" plasma tech.

[Jorgen_CAB]

Yes, plasma carronades is in a pretty good place as is... it has both pro and cons. In my opinion it does not need fixing in any way.

It certainly is a strong choice as secondary weapon for a missile/fighter centric fleet. It can also be combined with gauss and/or railguns for point defence.

Plasma weapons is also quite effective planetary defence weapons due to them having such cheap build cost for their size and destructive powers. You can also build quite cheap and effective bombardment platforms for ground invasion purposes.

You need to look past only one or a few isolated uses of any weapon system.

[Blacklight]

@Nuclearslurpee I dont understand how you can say their alpha strike is strong outside of a jump point defence.  Have you seen how drastically their damage drops off, to use them you HAVE to be faster than the enemy, you HAVE to be able to survive the entire distance closing from whatever your max range is to under about 20000km, and then when you do deploy your "alpha strike" youre still failing to out DPS nearly any other weapon in the game.  It does not have alpha strike capability outside of a jump point defence.  Not to mention what would happen if they offset their jump.

also if you think Carronade range is good youre insane.  the one i described, 30cm C2, has theoretically 24 damage at point blank with a range of 240000km.  which sounds good until you realise it fires once every 6 seconds and is doing 6 damage beyond 40000km, which is a quarter of its damage at quite literally a quarter of its range.  Literally any other weapon can out dps it, and not to mention that you dont even have the fire control tech to use that long range at that level.  The 12cm Laser is the same cost but half the tonnage, if you stack two it costs slightly more than a carronade but completely out competes it, it has better armour pen stats, it has better dps, it is more weapons capable of independent targetting.  Its only at literally point blank range that the Carronade even comes close to breaking even, which i think is a bit ridiculous.

If you have that much of a concern about its use in buffing ground forces attack then we can argue about increasing its RP, but honestly the negatives even if it got its range flattened would still make the Laser or literally any other weapon system a much more desirable option.

Also i dont know how youd justify them being used as point defence.  literally any other weapon, the least being a laser, outperform them in point defence and system defence roles.  i dont know what system defence boats you have that are both fast enough to chase down enemy incursions AND armoured enough to survive to 20000km range.


I really fail to understand how you can even pretend Plasma is an effective niche weapon, and honestly it makes me suspect that you dont actually understand how their range scales or something.

30 cm C2 Plasma Carronade   Range 80,000km     TS: 2,012 km/s     Power 24-2     RM 10,000 km    ROF 60        24 12 8 6 4 4 3 3 0 0
this is with an 80000km fire control, at C2 and a 30cm carronade, Range bands are set to 10000km.

so at 10000km, it does 24, 20k km 12, 30kkm 8, 40kkm 6.

Meanwhile, a 12cm Visible light laser. 
Single 12cm C2 Visible Light Laser Turret (1x1)    Range 80,000km     TS: 4000 km/s     Power 4-2     RM 20,000 km    ROF 10        4 4 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 0

Keep in mind the laser fires literally 6 times as fast.
It out dpses the Carronade at literally any range, and takes half as much tonnage, and a 12cm visible light C2 laser is not a very hard thing to research.
You can fit two of these easily, and its not like youre going to go bankrupt doing so, and start to massively out dps a carronade.

There is literally no situation except against maybe maybe maybe against armoured fac's that a carronade would outperfom, and again only at literally point blank range.  Its brute force armour pen at short range might give you an advantage, but beyond that it might as well not exist.  And god forbid you need to close the range over distance.

The carronade would be a barely viable weapon system if it had a flat damage curve, 1 damage per 10000km.  With the current damage drop off its near useless aside from being a tech to pad your ground forces weapons.

Also the only reason it even pretends to be a good STO is that the AI is dumb enough to come and sit perfectly in orbit of your planets.  Not to mention the insane amount of fiddly micro it takes to hold fire carronade STO's if you have any large number of them to wait until the enemy gets into range.  and that also assumes that the enemy doesnt wipe the formations on approach to the world where chances are theyre going to wildly outrange the carronades.


Please, if you disagree give me a detailed answer as to how Plasma is a viable weapon in any circumstance and dont just quote the same "its good for ground units and thats about it" stuff at me, ive been reading a literal ton of these comments and i respectfully disagree that this is all the weapon needs to be good.  I dont like researching a weapon solely so i wont use it.
It sucks.  And if you actually look at the stats etc, youll realise that it really does. 

[papent]

The main reasoning behind Blacklight logic is sound. "A shipborne weapon should be good at being a shipborne weapon."

A niche use as a planetary defense weapon or useful to ground forces strengthens Blacklight argument.

simile It like you created an elixir of youth but it's terribly at that purpose but works great as super LSD without side effects.