C# Suggestions

[gpt3]

I just now noticed that larger planets' and moons' diameters always seem to be nice multiples of 100.  This makes generated systems feel a bit less realistic: for example, in my current game there is a gas giant that has three moons each with a diameter of exactly 2,800 km.

Would it be feasible to add some random noise (say, +/- 10%) to bodies' diameters during system creation?

[serger]

I think it's really not a less realistic, because a diameter of celestial body is not a simple and reliably accurate thing. Planets really are not spherical - there are crust platforms, mount ranges, large craters and so on even for planets with solid surface, and for gas giants it's really very questionable what is their surface to calculate a diameter.

That's why astronomers are ok with rounding diameters.

[TMaekler]

That's why my suggestion is not to remove MSP and normal failures as they are now, but to add some small (and optional) probability of "smeg happens", that cannot be removed.

I misunderstood your idea as removing the actual system. Hmmm, additionally then... .

[Droll]

I just now noticed that larger planets' and moons' diameters always seem to be nice multiples of 100.  This makes generated systems feel a bit less realistic: for example, in my current game there is a gas giant that has three moons each with a diameter of exactly 2,800 km.

Would it be feasible to add some random noise (say, +/- 10%) to bodies' diameters during system creation?

To add to serger's response you'll notice that in the sol system bodies do actually have more accurate diameter measurements. It's all down to us being able to measure close by objects with more precision than ones millions of light years away.

[QuakeIV]

That doesn't really make sense, once the body is survey scanned we should pretty much know down to the millimeter.

I'm fine with rounding personally, seems like a minor inconsistency that Sol doesn't match that.

[Droll]

That doesn't really make sense, once the body is survey scanned we should pretty much know down to the millimeter.

I'm fine with rounding personally, seems like a minor inconsistency that Sol doesn't match that.

I should have clarified that this isn't necessarily an in game thing but more of an IRL thing. We don't have accurate readings on planets that aren't in the solar system so there's no point in trying to generate planets that have exact dimensions in aurora when the rounded ones work just fine.

Sol doesn't match this because we have IRL measurements for the planets in the solar system so you can use real life data when creating Sol. Can't do that with exo-planets.

[QuakeIV]

But the generated ones aren't supposed to be real anyhow, and you would have accurate measurements of those just fine?

[TMaekler]

Many players include certain information in the name of the ship modules. For example: S6 W9 M14 R2.5mkm - are usually added by me for missiles, and I have seen many players doing similar things. It would be a nice QoL if that information could be added by the game automatically - but we have a way of defining what we want to have "auto-generated"... .

[Borealis4x]

I'd love if the game kept track of the ships number and designation somewhere.

I.e., it says CV-12 for your 12th carrier vessel. Even better if you could tick a box to include it in the name.

[Warer]

Group by class in Naval Organization, with a pop up when drag and dropping for how many of that group to move, to minimize fighter micro especially for micro-fighters. Failing that box select and drag and drop if at all possible.

Thought I`m suspecting this isn`t possible for some reason, as due to being so obvious it would be in the game if it was.

[nuclearslurpee]

Group by class in Naval Organization, with a pop up when drag and dropping for how many of that group to move, to minimize fighter micro especially for micro-fighters. Failing that box select and drag and drop if at all possible.

Thought I`m suspecting this isn`t possible for some reason, as due to being so obvious it would be in the game if it was.

Doesn't the window already group ships by class, within a fleet or subfleet of course?

If you select a fleet, in the ship list window on the right side you can use Shift+click and Ctrl+click to select a group of ships. I always use this to arrange my fighters at game start. The "Create Subfleet" button will operate on a selection made in this way allowing you to easily create fighter squadrons from a large fleet of fighters.

[nuclearslurpee]

In the Naval Organization Window, Ship Overview top tab, Ordnance Template bottom tab:

Currently "SM: Fill Ship" and "SM: Fill Class" only fill the selected ship, using the ship or class template loadout, respectively. It would be nice to have an additional button which would fill all ships of a class with the class ordnance template, to assist in making corrections especially at game start. Alternatively the current "SM: Fill Class" button could be changed to have this function since I imagine it gets very little use compared to "SM: Fill Ship".

[TMaekler]

Traditional Navymen: It happens ever so often that kids of famous military men also join the services. It could be a nice addition if Aurora kept track of successful Generals and Admirals and would join age-fitting new recruits so they could also go for a successful military career. Those new recruits obviously would have a high score in political relations and will increase in rank even if they are total loosers. When these kids join military it would be nice if the game sends a fitting message to the log. "New promising officer: The son/daughter of General Miller has joined your ranks as a Lieutenant."

[QuakeIV]

This is a highly entertaining idea and I like it.

[serger]

1. Make Build Points / Wealth Cost for all components square rooted from their sizes (the same as Research Points now) instead of linear.
2. Add a modifier to Hit Chance, square rooted from the target size (with x1 point at 1000 tons as a natural watershed between spacecraft and starships).

(Side note: square root isn't the best as realistical approximation, yet it's simple, and it's too exciting for before dinner to tweak formulas with intersections between average target effective projection and gaussian distribution of impact trajectories, where this gaussian isn't flat enough to pretend it's even.)

Light combat ships and fighters will become less vulnerable, yet relatively more expensive, so overall balance might be preserved, with a shift to more elite-like fighter forces and recon role for light military ships.