Author Topic: C# Suggestions  (Read 81508 times)

nuclearslurpee and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Sebmono

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • S
  • Posts: 18
  • Thanked: 7 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #1830 on: June 06, 2021, 11:46:25 PM »
Excellent idea. Just in case you didn't know though:
If you have at least one instance of a class in active service, you can use "assign all" to copy it's weapon/FC assignments to all other instances of that class which means that often its just a couple clicks before battle to assign everything the way you want it.
Great reminder, I often forget about that one until way after the fact but it is indeed better than going one by one or fleet by fleet.
 

Offline Blogaugis

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • Posts: 21
  • Thanked: 4 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #1831 on: June 09, 2021, 05:50:53 AM »
I have a suggestion about ground force HQ and fire direction units:

Make them have another parameter - operating range.
The simple explanation is: have options for HQ and fire direction units to be:

Planetary - which essentially limits their capability to command/direct fire the units in the same planet and it's orbit, Generally, what we have now;
Solar System/interplanetary - Allows commanders in HQs to provide bonuses to units under their command while in the same solar system, and FFDs to provide coordinates for ships/STOs further away from the planet;
Sector/Interstellar - A bit like Naval Admin command range, it is generally relevant to the HQ formations than FFDs (since, I don't know if you can fire a missile, make it go through a wormhole, and then find the FFD's indicated coordinates?)

This feature would allow to design 'Command and Control ships', that can hold, like, Army group HQ (rank 7, with like 1. 000. 000 Command points and Solar System/Interplanetary upgrade) that provides commander bonuses to units fighting on a Planet in this system (with just planetary upgrade), while this Army group HQ could itself be attached to a 'Earth High Command' (rank 8, with 10. 000. 000 Command points and Sector/Interstellar upgrade).
For FFD unit, with Solar System/Interplanetary upgrade, it could direct fire from a STO on a moon that is orbiting the planet on which the FFD is.

Mechanically wise, these options can function similarly to upgrades that we have now.  What they essentially do - in case of HQ unit, they double the price of the HQ unit if it is Solar system/Interplanetary upgrade, triple or quadruple (perhaps there can be another variable, like with Naval Command HQs), determining how big their operating range is.

Generally, another mechanically supported role-play option.  It would allow us to have a more interesting means to disperse our forces across solar systems, making dugouts and small defensible fortresses on them a more viable strategy in terms of defending the solar system.

Semi-autonomous bases on asteroids further away - Activate!
 
The following users thanked this post: QuakeIV

Offline QuakeIV

  • Registered
  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 676
  • Thanked: 145 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #1832 on: June 09, 2021, 06:14:41 PM »
I like the idea of room in the mechanics for command and control ships.
 
The following users thanked this post: Blogaugis

Offline Nori

  • Bronze Supporter
  • Lieutenant
  • *****
  • Posts: 173
  • Thanked: 30 times
  • Discord Username: Nori Silverrage
  • Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter : Support the forums with a Bronze subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #1833 on: June 09, 2021, 08:10:23 PM »
I may just not know how to do this, but in case...
When I rescue survivors they seem to go on the first ship in the fleet. Which would be fine if I had no ships with cryo. But, I nearly always have a few ships in a battlefleet with 250, or 1k cryo for RP/rescues. Inevitably the survivors always go on a ship without cryo.

Anyway to a preference could be added for the ships that have cryo?
 
The following users thanked this post: Droll, DEEPenergy, Sebmono

Offline Droll

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • D
  • Posts: 1244
  • Thanked: 343 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #1834 on: June 09, 2021, 08:15:43 PM »
I may just not know how to do this, but in case...
When I rescue survivors they seem to go on the first ship in the fleet. Which would be fine if I had no ships with cryo. But, I nearly always have a few ships in a battlefleet with 250, or 1k cryo for RP/rescues. Inevitably the survivors always go on a ship without cryo.

Anyway to a preference could be added for the ships that have cryo?

Yeah the game should prioritize cryo capable ships first for picking up survivors.
 
The following users thanked this post: QuakeIV

Online nuclearslurpee

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 991
  • Thanked: 670 times
  • Radioactive frozen beverage.
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #1835 on: June 09, 2021, 08:59:55 PM »
I may just not know how to do this, but in case...
When I rescue survivors they seem to go on the first ship in the fleet. Which would be fine if I had no ships with cryo. But, I nearly always have a few ships in a battlefleet with 250, or 1k cryo for RP/rescues. Inevitably the survivors always go on a ship without cryo.

Anyway to a preference could be added for the ships that have cryo?

Yeah the game should prioritize cryo capable ships first for picking up survivors.

Fixed in 1.14:
Quote
Updated the rescue code so that the fleet ship that picks up a specific life pod is the first ship in a list ordered by Descending Available Cryogenic Capacity then Descending (Class Crew - Current Survivors)
 
The following users thanked this post: Droll, DEEPenergy, skoormit, Sebmono

Offline linkxsc

  • Commander
  • *********
  • l
  • Posts: 301
  • Thanked: 14 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #1836 on: June 10, 2021, 12:08:58 PM »
Civilian Industry.

A building type that acts like an upgraded conventional industry. Only at about 25% efficiency (compared to regular TN factories)

Untransportable, and un-upgradable. This industry spawns on colonies of sufficient size that have significant amounts of unemployment. ,Have it set to a low priority for jobs (due to the cushy jobs at govt construction centers paying better perhaps)
 
The following users thanked this post: papent, serger

Online nuclearslurpee

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 991
  • Thanked: 670 times
  • Radioactive frozen beverage.
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #1837 on: June 10, 2021, 01:55:59 PM »
Add a "Match Target Speed" order, which functions identically to the Follow order except that once you reach the contact (or the specified minimum distance) the fleet speed is set to the same speed as the target if possible.

This would make following enemy fleets while avoiding their weapons range a bit less micromanage-y, especially if the speed matching part of the order remains active, i.e. if the target speed changes so does your fleet's speed to match.
 
The following users thanked this post: serger, BAGrimm, Foxxonius Augustus, Sebmono, ISN

Offline Blogaugis

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • Posts: 21
  • Thanked: 4 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #1838 on: June 11, 2021, 10:28:15 AM »
I have another suggestion/question:

Would it be feasible to have a "Cargo Hold - Fighter", with 250 ton size (or less) in the game?
Considering that a ship has to be 500 tons or smaller in order to interact with a planet (to load cargo, passengers, etc.), do we still need to rely on Cargo Shuttle Bays, or would it be possible to micro-design them ourselves?

I feel like I'm making a mistake with a cryogenic shuttle design, in terms of practicality.
 
The following users thanked this post: papent, Foxxonius Augustus

Online nuclearslurpee

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 991
  • Thanked: 670 times
  • Radioactive frozen beverage.
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #1839 on: June 11, 2021, 11:41:43 AM »
I have another suggestion/question:

Would it be feasible to have a "Cargo Hold - Fighter", with 250 ton size (or less) in the game?
Considering that a ship has to be 500 tons or smaller in order to interact with a planet (to load cargo, passengers, etc.), do we still need to rely on Cargo Shuttle Bays, or would it be possible to micro-design them ourselves?

I feel like I'm making a mistake with a cryogenic shuttle design, in terms of practicality.

You can get away with not having a cargo shuttle bay, but only if the source and destination colonies both have cargo handling capability themselves. Otherwise it won't work.

At any rate, a "microfreighter" like this is extremely impractical anyways - the small engine size means not only is fuel efficiency very poor but it is impossible to make these as a commercial ship, so your "freighters" will eat into your maintenance capacity as military vessels. If you want small freighters you're usually better off with a small commercial design, a single commercial engine is 1,250 tons at minimum so a ship in the 3,000-5,000 ton range can work, or you can build up to 10,000 tons (size of a new commercial yard) with 2-3 engines and more cargo space. Such designs are usually most practical for moving minerals around where mass drivers are not practical, although pretty quickly you'll find a need for more traditional large freighters once you start expanding mining operations appreciably.
 

Offline Blogaugis

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • Posts: 21
  • Thanked: 4 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #1840 on: June 11, 2021, 01:04:52 PM »
You can get away with not having a cargo shuttle bay, but only if the source and destination colonies both have cargo handling capability themselves. Otherwise it won't work.

At any rate, a "microfreighter" like this is extremely impractical anyways - the small engine size means not only is fuel efficiency very poor but it is impossible to make these as a commercial ship, so your "freighters" will eat into your maintenance capacity as military vessels. If you want small freighters you're usually better off with a small commercial design, a single commercial engine is 1,250 tons at minimum so a ship in the 3,000-5,000 ton range can work, or you can build up to 10,000 tons (size of a new commercial yard) with 2-3 engines and more cargo space. Such designs are usually most practical for moving minerals around where mass drivers are not practical, although pretty quickly you'll find a need for more traditional large freighters once you start expanding mining operations appreciably.
Guess what? It didn't work.
The less than 500 ton shuttle can't even work as a shuttle - colonists couldn't leave the ships.

We need SPECIALIZED shuttles (The ones in the background of 'Cargo Shuttle Bay', and not the ones you spend oh so long creating in the designs screen)!
Out of the idea of a quick colonist shuttle transport, I get nothing.
Sorry sir, we're not IMPLEMENTED to react with a planet in this way! - imagine hearing this while role-playing as a shuttle transport captain...

Well, I suppose I'll add another suggestion then:
In the class design screen, It would be nice to have categories and subcategories of components, like - cargo/colonist/ordnance/fuel handling components - Once you open this category, you can then choose one of these 4, and then choose the specific component you're looking for.
CCOFtT -> Cargo/Colonist/Ordance/Fuel/Troop Transport -> Cargo ->
- actually, there already is 'cargo hold' category, and plenty of others...
Also - It would be nice if in the events screen it says that the loading/unloading orders could not be completed due to lack of Cargo Shuttle Bays or planetary installations.
 

Offline Droll

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • D
  • Posts: 1244
  • Thanked: 343 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #1841 on: June 11, 2021, 01:33:29 PM »
You can get away with not having a cargo shuttle bay, but only if the source and destination colonies both have cargo handling capability themselves. Otherwise it won't work.

At any rate, a "microfreighter" like this is extremely impractical anyways - the small engine size means not only is fuel efficiency very poor but it is impossible to make these as a commercial ship, so your "freighters" will eat into your maintenance capacity as military vessels. If you want small freighters you're usually better off with a small commercial design, a single commercial engine is 1,250 tons at minimum so a ship in the 3,000-5,000 ton range can work, or you can build up to 10,000 tons (size of a new commercial yard) with 2-3 engines and more cargo space. Such designs are usually most practical for moving minerals around where mass drivers are not practical, although pretty quickly you'll find a need for more traditional large freighters once you start expanding mining operations appreciably.
Guess what? It didn't work.
The less than 500 ton shuttle can't even work as a shuttle - colonists couldn't leave the ships.

We need SPECIALIZED shuttles (The ones in the background of 'Cargo Shuttle Bay', and not the ones you spend oh so long creating in the designs screen)!
Out of the idea of a quick colonist shuttle transport, I get nothing.
Sorry sir, we're not IMPLEMENTED to react with a planet in this way! - imagine hearing this while role-playing as a shuttle transport captain...

Well, I suppose I'll add another suggestion then:
In the class design screen, It would be nice to have categories and subcategories of components, like - cargo/colonist/ordnance/fuel handling components - Once you open this category, you can then choose one of these 4, and then choose the specific component you're looking for.
CCOFtT -> Cargo/Colonist/Ordance/Fuel/Troop Transport -> Cargo ->
- actually, there already is 'cargo hold' category, and plenty of others...
Also - It would be nice if in the events screen it says that the loading/unloading orders could not be completed due to lack of Cargo Shuttle Bays or planetary installations.

This sounds like a bug. The whole shtick of 500 ton fighter sized craft is that they don't need cargo handling facilities to interact with planets. If your design is considered as a fighter by the game, then you should not need a cargo shuttle bay to land cargo/colonists on a planet. So I feel like this is a bug.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2021, 01:35:11 PM by Droll »
 
The following users thanked this post: Blogaugis

Online nuclearslurpee

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 991
  • Thanked: 670 times
  • Radioactive frozen beverage.
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #1842 on: June 11, 2021, 02:00:07 PM »
This sounds like a bug. The whole shtick of 500 ton fighter sized craft is that they don't need cargo handling facilities to interact with planets. If your design is considered as a fighter by the game, then you should not need a cargo shuttle bay to land cargo/colonists on a planet. So I feel like this is a bug.

Not sure if this is a bug, my understanding of fighters was that in spite of the lore around them their only special mechanic was being built by planetary facilities. Once they're built they don't have any other special rules aside from benefitting from Fighter Combat skills.

As a suggestion though expanding the fighter mechanics to fit the lore is a good idea, in a broader sense. I know many players would also like to be able to do ground-side refits for example. The ability to land fighters on a planet and keep them safe from enemy spaceships (unless orbital bombardment happens) also seems neat.
 
The following users thanked this post: Blogaugis

Offline Droll

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • D
  • Posts: 1244
  • Thanked: 343 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #1843 on: June 11, 2021, 02:54:22 PM »
Not sure if this is a bug, my understanding of fighters was that in spite of the lore around them their only special mechanic was being built by planetary facilities. Once they're built they don't have any other special rules aside from benefitting from Fighter Combat skills.

I can't be bothered to dig through the C# mechanics changes thread for the first release right now but IIRC one of the posts there explicitly stated that fighters did not need planetary cargo handling facilities to interact with planets, the lore justification for the mechanic being that fighters could viably perform planetary landings.

That's why I think it's a bug that fighters can't do this. Though I suppose you also have a point in that there actually isn't a fighter sized cargo bay in the game right now, but you do have cryo that can be fit onto a fighter so why not (I mean fighter sized cargo bays to the order of 200t is a good suggestion too).
« Last Edit: June 11, 2021, 03:47:52 PM by Droll »
 
The following users thanked this post: Blogaugis

Online nuclearslurpee

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 991
  • Thanked: 670 times
  • Radioactive frozen beverage.
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #1844 on: June 11, 2021, 03:08:39 PM »
I can't be bothered to dig through the C# mechanics changes thread

But I can!

Closest I can find is this post here. It comes close to what you are describing, stating that lore-wise only craft of <500 tons can land on a planet, and using this as the logic for cargo shuttles. However, it does not state explicitly that fighter-size ships would be able to land on a planet to load and unload cargo.

I'd guess that Steve never thought anyone would actually be trying to do this for any purpose other than RP and thus either didn't think of or didn't get around to implementing shuttle-free load/unload for fighters.
 
The following users thanked this post: Droll, Blogaugis

 

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 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78