Author Topic: C# Suggestions  (Read 271984 times)

0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Vandermeer

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 961
  • Thanked: 128 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #2220 on: December 01, 2021, 10:58:48 AM »
Add a checkbox to prevent officers from teleporting to and from their destinations upon (re)assignment. We have the option to shuttle them around, after all; it'd be nice if it could be forced.
I like it better as it is now, since you can actually do the RP part still and assign officers to transfer shuttles if you want to. One of the first big Aurora Let's Plays had that rule, though I forgot the name.
playing Aurora as swarm fleet: Zen Nomadic Hive Fantasy
 
The following users thanked this post: LuuBluum

Offline LuuBluum

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • L
  • Posts: 61
  • Thanked: 12 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #2221 on: December 01, 2021, 11:13:46 AM »
Ah, yeah, I can just assign naval officers to shuttle commanding or a ground unit officer to command a headquarter-only unit and then transport the unit. I'll just have to remember to disable auto-promotion whenever there's a vacancy that I care about shuttling the officer over to to fill.
 

Offline ArcWolf

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • A
  • Posts: 160
  • Thanked: 80 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #2222 on: December 01, 2021, 01:46:28 PM »
Question & Suggestion:

In the DB under FTC_ShippingLines there is a column maned "MaxAssets". Am i right to assume that means the maximum number of ships the shipping line can have?

If so can we have that added as a setting so we can adjust? I had a campaign recently where one shipping line had well over 100 ships, and i had 11 shipping lines in total numbering well over 800 ships. IF we could limit the Number of ships a line could have and possibly the number of shipping lines per empire it could help with late game slowdowns.
 

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2791
  • Thanked: 1052 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #2223 on: December 01, 2021, 06:52:18 PM »
You can just disable civilian shipping lines once they are big enough for your purposes. You can even toggle them back on later if you wish and even later you can turn them off again.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11667
  • Thanked: 20429 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #2224 on: December 02, 2021, 05:06:46 AM »
In the DB under FTC_ShippingLines there is a column maned "MaxAssets". Am i right to assume that means the maximum number of ships the shipping line can have?

Its the most total assets (cash plus ships) that the shipping line has ever had.
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • J
  • Posts: 2837
  • Thanked: 673 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #2225 on: December 02, 2021, 06:04:42 AM »
Question & Suggestion:

In the DB under FTC_ShippingLines there is a column maned "MaxAssets". Am i right to assume that means the maximum number of ships the shipping line can have?

If so can we have that added as a setting so we can adjust? I had a campaign recently where one shipping line had well over 100 ships, and i had 11 shipping lines in total numbering well over 800 ships. IF we could limit the Number of ships a line could have and possibly the number of shipping lines per empire it could help with late game slowdowns.

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.
« Last Edit: December 02, 2021, 06:08:44 AM by Jorgen_CAB »
 

Offline xenoscepter

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1157
  • Thanked: 318 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #2226 on: December 03, 2021, 01:24:54 AM »
Question & Suggestion:

In the DB under FTC_ShippingLines there is a column maned "MaxAssets". Am i right to assume that means the maximum number of ships the shipping line can have?

If so can we have that added as a setting so we can adjust? I had a campaign recently where one shipping line had well over 100 ships, and i had 11 shipping lines in total numbering well over 800 ships. IF we could limit the Number of ships a line could have and possibly the number of shipping lines per empire it could help with late game slowdowns.

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'd like it a lot more if the Civilians were always a tech behind. So at Fuel Efficiency 1, they'd be at well, 1... BUT at 0.9 they'd still be at 1, only going to 0.9 when the player researches 0.8! Likewise with engines, armor and the like, so they'd develop more slowly. I'd also like to see Fuel / Mineral requirements added, with a tick box at gamegen to turn it off, of course. :) The player would be able to set aside a portion of Fuel production for the civvies, whilst Civilian Fuel Harvesters which the player isn't buying from would be able to add to this. They wouldn't track nor consume Fuel, but rather the player would simply produce less and the overall range / number of ships would depend on how much is available. Minerals would work the much the same, determining what mineral expenditures the Civilian Lines could afford. Wealth would limit the total BP, while the Civilian Lines could make use of older tech to get around the mineral limits to some degree. Likewise it would ideally be tracked planet to planet with the player being able to designate some planets to be excluded, presumably via the existing "Military Only" restriction. Then the Civilian Lines could build tankers and even fuel depots / "bases" replete with mineral haulers and shipyards to "build" their ships. CMCs not selling to the player would make their minerals available to these shipping lines, so CMCs and Civilian Fuel Harvesters would give those lines something else to spend the wealth on. Bringing back subsidizing, but as a general % of overall wealth made available to the Shipping Lines and with the option for the player to further prioritize what percent of that available wealth would be available to what shipping lines on a line per line basis would also be really net and really complete the package.
 

Offline dsedrez

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • d
  • Posts: 64
  • Thanked: 16 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #2227 on: December 03, 2021, 06:51:43 AM »
Question & Suggestion:

In the DB under FTC_ShippingLines there is a column maned "MaxAssets". Am i right to assume that means the maximum number of ships the shipping line can have?

If so can we have that added as a setting so we can adjust? I had a campaign recently where one shipping line had well over 100 ships, and i had 11 shipping lines in total numbering well over 800 ships. IF we could limit the Number of ships a line could have and possibly the number of shipping lines per empire it could help with late game slowdowns.

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?
 

Offline Migi

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 465
  • Thanked: 172 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #2228 on: December 03, 2021, 06:53:15 AM »
I'd like infantry to be able to carry the light autocannon and statics to mount all autocannons. Unless there is a reason why they can't at the moment?
 
The following users thanked this post: xenoscepter

Offline xenoscepter

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1157
  • Thanked: 318 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #2229 on: December 03, 2021, 08:33:20 AM »
I'd like infantry to be able to carry the light autocannon and statics to mount all autocannons. Unless there is a reason why they can't at the moment?

*casually lifts 20mm Chain Gun* Yeah, what he said.
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • J
  • Posts: 2837
  • Thanked: 673 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #2230 on: December 03, 2021, 08:39:29 AM »
Question & Suggestion:

In the DB under FTC_ShippingLines there is a column maned "MaxAssets". Am i right to assume that means the maximum number of ships the shipping line can have?

If so can we have that added as a setting so we can adjust? I had a campaign recently where one shipping line had well over 100 ships, and i had 11 shipping lines in total numbering well over 800 ships. IF we could limit the Number of ships a line could have and possibly the number of shipping lines per empire it could help with late game slowdowns.

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.
 

Offline Migi

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 465
  • Thanked: 172 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #2231 on: December 03, 2021, 08:59:07 AM »
I'd like infantry to be able to carry the light autocannon and statics to mount all autocannons. Unless there is a reason why they can't at the moment?

*casually lifts 20mm Chain Gun* Yeah, what he said.
You can have infantry with a light anti tank or CAP, why is the light autocannon different? The tonnage indicates there is a whole team operating it, not just a single person.
 

Offline cdrtwohy

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • c
  • Posts: 39
  • Thanked: 5 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #2232 on: December 03, 2021, 09:25:13 AM »
Quote
You can have infantry with a light anti tank or CAP, why is the light autocannon different? The tonnage indicates there is a whole team operating it, not just a single person.

we also have Power armour in the game so you could lock the autocannon abhind that as well

by the way as for CAP or AT a always just assumed light AT were LAWs or AT4s or some equivalent man portable system like that (same with LAA bing stingers) and CAP being the equivalent of a M240B
 

Offline nuclearslurpee

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2981
  • Thanked: 2242 times
  • Radioactive frozen beverage.
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #2233 on: December 03, 2021, 10:32:49 AM »
I'd like infantry to be able to carry the light autocannon and statics to mount all autocannons. Unless there is a reason why they can't at the moment?

*casually lifts 20mm Chain Gun* Yeah, what he said.
You can have infantry with a light anti tank or CAP, why is the light autocannon different? The tonnage indicates there is a whole team operating it, not just a single person.

While waiting for this suggestion (or if it never happens), this is a very simple DB mod to implement on your own - in the table DIM_GroundComponentType (or similar name) you only need to change a 0 to 1 in a single column to unlock a weapon type for a base unit type. In case anyone would like to do this...

we also have Power armour in the game so you could lock the autocannon abhind that as well

Actually not, with the way ground units are implemented in Aurora the choice of components is limited only by the base type and cannot interact with armor. Changing this is theoretically possible but would require considerably complicating the DB entries in a way that would make adding additional armor types as a DB mod basically impossible - in addition to complicating the code and likely introducing bug potential for ground unit creation.
 

Offline cdrtwohy

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • c
  • Posts: 39
  • Thanked: 5 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #2234 on: December 03, 2021, 10:37:11 AM »
Quote
Actually not, with the way ground units are implemented in Aurora the choice of components is limited only by the base type and cannot interact with armor.  Changing this is theoretically possible but would require considerably complicating the DB entries in a way that would make adding additional armor types as a DB mod basically impossible - in addition to complicating the code and likely introducing bug potential for ground unit creation.

true I guess i ment more from an RP perspective, we could let infantry have LACs but from an RP not use them unless either you had PA or genetically engineered supersoldiers, I have no issue with allowing Infantry access to LAC, my point was more there are ways around the " 20mm chain gun is to heavy so don't let infantry have ACs) argument