Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
C# Mechanics / Re: v1.14.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Last post by Steve Walmsley on Today at 02:21:33 AM »
First off, I'm super excited the officer corps mechanics are being re-worked. Having all starting officers being the same age always made me have to look the other way for RP reasons, so thanks for tweaking all that.

Second off, I'd like to second the proposals that starting age either be drastically shifted upwards or made a variable players can set. It would greatly help with immersion, for those who are more into the personnel side of the roleplay, I think. The crew tooltip always mentioned "enlisted and junior officers" for your total racial crew amount, so I always assumed the new lieutenant commanders were being promoted up from that abstract pool of crew, not graduating straight out of the academy.

I've always wanted to write a utility that generates service histories for your officers prior to attaining the minimum rank aurora tracks (generally lieutenant commander) and now that we have proper tracking of age, it's very tempting to jump on this after 2.0 drops. I dunno how much more you want to go into the officer stuff Steve, but if you want to make that a part of the base game as well that would be interesting  ;) (basically just looking at what ships existed before an officer is "created" and generating a short history of service for the officer based on their bonuses. E.g., large tactical bonuses maybe had division officer/ department head roles in weapons, maybe the engineering officers had some section duty in an engine room or something, etc.)

You means something like the Traveller pre-game career path?
2
C# Suggestions / Re: C# Suggestions
« Last post by ArcWolf on Today at 02:10:27 AM »


I was talking about engine power yes, not fuel efficiency technology... the engine power effect fuel efficiency though.

So... what I meant was that you use SM to keep your engine power level at a minimum of 0.5, this make civilian ships more expensive but faster, so more efficient. The civilians otherwise use cheaper and slower ships.

This way you  reduce the amount of civilian ships your civilians build, ut they also are more efficient as they will be faster.

I then use SM whenever I myself design an engine based on what I researched. I then SM back to 0.5 engine power technology at minimum so the civilians keep using that technology.

ahh, that makes sense, i had no idea what you were saying either. Not something i have to worry about though, i never research the tech for lower ep then .5, i see no reason to (i also play on 15-20% research speed, so i have more important techs to worry about).
3
C# Mechanics / Re: v1.14.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Last post by Vivalas on Yesterday at 11:15:15 PM »
First off, I'm super excited the officer corps mechanics are being re-worked. Having all starting officers being the same age always made me have to look the other way for RP reasons, so thanks for tweaking all that.

Second off, I'd like to second the proposals that starting age either be drastically shifted upwards or made a variable players can set. It would greatly help with immersion, for those who are more into the personnel side of the roleplay, I think. The crew tooltip always mentioned "enlisted and junior officers" for your total racial crew amount, so I always assumed the new lieutenant commanders were being promoted up from that abstract pool of crew, not graduating straight out of the academy.

I've always wanted to write a utility that generates service histories for your officers prior to attaining the minimum rank aurora tracks (generally lieutenant commander) and now that we have proper tracking of age, it's very tempting to jump on this after 2.0 drops. I dunno how much more you want to go into the officer stuff Steve, but if you want to make that a part of the base game as well that would be interesting  ;) (basically just looking at what ships existed before an officer is "created" and generating a short history of service for the officer based on their bonuses. E.g., large tactical bonuses maybe had division officer/ department head roles in weapons, maybe the engineering officers had some section duty in an engine room or something, etc.)
4
C# Suggestions / Re: C# Suggestions
« Last post by LuuBluum on Yesterday at 10:14:39 PM »
Yeah, the big change would be that supporting a colony with colonists from well-inhabited main worlds would be the main way to encourage their growth, by exploiting the high growth rate of mid-populated planets. Colony ships would increase in volume for sure.
5
C# Suggestions / Re: C# Suggestions
« Last post by nuclearslurpee on Yesterday at 10:01:59 PM »
I'm definitely not opposed to it on principle, because encouraging the kind of "medium"-size hundreds-of-millions population colonies is good for roleplay in my opinion. Presently the balance seems to be toward the extremes, with low-pop colonies to breed more colonists and high/max-pop colonies as major hub worlds. It's just that such a key element of the game economy has to be handled carefully.
6
C# Suggestions / Re: Minor Ground Unit Suggestions
« Last post by Bluebreaker on Yesterday at 09:57:14 PM »
If you land on a planet with a million or more troops then you can't expect a few thousand fighters to do anything at all, you probably need a few hundred thousands of fighters to really have an impact. You could then hunt for AA as well which is less micro and suppress it before you start focusing on ground troops... you could even do suppression before you land your troops so you can focus on support bombardment of enemy troops directly.

The biggest drawback of the fighters are the horrible micro surrounding them.. I also wish that AA suppression mechanic was better as well.
In essence the problem is that ground fighters are implemented as a ship/fighter rather than a ground unit with special rules.
If they were a ground unit there would be little issue with deploying/using them in the thousands.
7
C# Suggestions / Re: C# Suggestions
« Last post by LuuBluum on Yesterday at 09:53:49 PM »
[math]
That way instead of current (where colonies have crazy-fast growth rate at first until leveling off), it would be a nice logistic curve: slow to start, fast in the middle, and then smoothing out at the end. Plus this accounts for if the population exceeds the population capacity; at that point the equation becomes negative.

It's important to note that this is actually a significant change to the game economy, as right now an important motive for colonization is that smaller populations grow more quickly and population soon becomes a critical resource for a mid-game empire. If you shift the curve to make small colonies grow slowly, the game's economics have to be completely reevaluated. It is one of those cases where making the game "more realistic" might not be good for gameplay. It can certainly work but it would involve a lot of rebalancing work to make sure it works right and doesn't break the core economic mechanics.
Fair. For what its worth, the growth rate exceeds that of the current mechanic (with that r constant) at about 275 million. You can fudge the constant, of course, if you want it to be a faster or slower growth, and doing so is proportional to when that overlap happens. Take the rate x10, and it exceeds at 27 million; x100, and at 2 million.

Of course, since growth is effectively exponential until halfway to the population capacity, doing such a thing makes the population shoot off into the stratosphere pretty quick. I agree that it's a hard thing to balance; my goal isn't realism here but just to smooth out the lower end. Which... well, the straightforward one for that is the logistic equation. Issue is as you mentioned, that it creates a population crunch for the midgame until you manage to hit that critical population blow-up point. Which... well, moving 300 million people isn't exactly trivial.
8
C# Suggestions / Re: C# Suggestions
« Last post by nuclearslurpee on Yesterday at 09:20:12 PM »
[math]
That way instead of current (where colonies have crazy-fast growth rate at first until leveling off), it would be a nice logistic curve: slow to start, fast in the middle, and then smoothing out at the end. Plus this accounts for if the population exceeds the population capacity; at that point the equation becomes negative.

It's important to note that this is actually a significant change to the game economy, as right now an important motive for colonization is that smaller populations grow more quickly and population soon becomes a critical resource for a mid-game empire. If you shift the curve to make small colonies grow slowly, the game's economics have to be completely reevaluated. It is one of those cases where making the game "more realistic" might not be good for gameplay. It can certainly work but it would involve a lot of rebalancing work to make sure it works right and doesn't break the core economic mechanics.
9
C# Suggestions / Re: C# Suggestions
« Last post by dsedrez on Yesterday at 06:53:11 PM »
Make sure that you always SM the fuel efficiency technology so it is at minimum 0.5 after you research it. This makes the civilian build more expensive but more efficient ships so will have less of them but are a bit more efficient. This will help with overall performance... it does require some micromanagement as you need to SM in the actual level of efficiency that you researched when designing a more efficient engines for your commercial designs, but can be worth it for overall game performance.

I pretty much do this all the time now in my games. Your civilian fleet will develop a bit slower but it is probably worth it overall from a game performance perspective.

I would like if there were an option in the game that civilian ships always built their ships with the more expensive 0.5 engine as that will save game resources so I did not need to deal with this manually. I know it might not be realistic and they should use the more fuel efficient engine. But mechanically it does not really matter as they don't consume fuel anyway and game performance is more important.

I'm not sure I understand. Jorgen. You're not referring to fuel consumption, because it doesn't affect engine cost, right? Is it engine power, then? I've stopped researching lower EP ratings when I noticed the civ lines abusing it... newer ships were *slower* than the earlier ones because they "upgraded" the engines.
Are you saying to mod civ commercial engines to be, say, 0.7 engine power rather than 0.5 where they start? So they're faster but also more expensive? How can I do that with SM? Can I SM edit the civ designs?

I was talking about engine power yes, not fuel efficiency technology... the engine power effect fuel efficiency though.

So... what I meant was that you use SM to keep your engine power level at a minimum of 0.5, this make civilian ships more expensive but faster, so more efficient. The civilians otherwise use cheaper and slower ships.

This way you  reduce the amount of civilian ships your civilians build, ut they also are more efficient as they will be faster.

I then use SM whenever I myself design an engine based on what I researched. I then SM back to 0.5 engine power technology at minimum so the civilians keep using that technology.

Ok. I thought you were referring to SM-editing the civ designs to put, say, a 0.7 engine in place of the one they've used originally. I tested and yes, you can do that. It seems the designs aren't even locked. What I didn't do was try the game in this configuration: I don't know if the civ will build new ships, if they'd work correctly etc. Maybe a test for later.
Maybe I *can* add some sensors, something I've wanted to do for a long time... though it has to be checked whether their output will be shown to the player.
10
C# Suggestions / Re: C# Suggestions
« Last post by LuuBluum on Yesterday at 06:19:39 PM »
Would it be possible to change the population growth rate from the current system (I think it's like the minimum of 20/P^(1/3) and 0.1 up to a third of the population capacity, at which point it is a linear fall-off) to a logistic equation? Wouldn't be much more complicated than the current method. Would be simply r*P*(1-P/K), where P is the current population, r is a growth rate constant (that variable we put in per species, fudged a bit to make population grow sufficiently fast for a 4x game), and K is the population capacity (calculated the same as currently). That way instead of current (where colonies have crazy-fast growth rate at first until leveling off), it would be a nice logistic curve: slow to start, fast in the middle, and then smoothing out at the end. Plus this accounts for if the population exceeds the population capacity; at that point the equation becomes negative.

Actually... in the same suggestion, would it be possible to replace population capacity in that equation with min(population capacity of planet, population supported by infrastructure)? That way colonies don't outpace the infrastructure being put in place, and actually account for it in their growth.

Computationally-speaking, I think this should actually be cheaper to calculate given that it avoids that cubic root.

This should also play nicely with the "colony cost range" effect of the new eccentric orbits, given that the population supported by infrastructure would vary as well, and that this equation can handle going negative just fine.


If you want a good estimate for the current actual human population growth rate, assuming that the equation is working with millions of population as a unit, r should be about 0.00037. That should give roughly a population growth rate of 1 for 7.9 billion people where the population capacity is 12 billion: where we are now.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk