Author Topic: C# Suggestions  (Read 272445 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Droll

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • D
  • Posts: 1704
  • Thanked: 599 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #1815 on: May 31, 2021, 02:24:33 PM »
I was hesitant to put this into the bugs reporting since I don't think it's technically a bug. The Fire At Will fleet setting doesn't retarget a different enemy ship after destroying its initial target. You have to manually select Fire At Will again for it to select a new target. It'd cut some unnecessary micro if it did, especially during large fleet combats.

It's certainly not a bug but I'd also like to add an extension to the fire at will buttons that should be quite obvious based on their name.
Fire at will BFC
Fire at will MFC

It's quite bad when I tell the fleet to fire at will and then all the AMM ships start wasting precious AMM unless I go and disable their FCs. For me its annoying because my missile ships can have like 5-8 MFCs on them.
 
The following users thanked this post: serger

Offline TMaekler

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1112
  • Thanked: 298 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #1816 on: June 02, 2021, 02:46:57 AM »
Anyway, when I assign my junior officer with the best Crew Training skill to be the XO of a warship, the auto-assignment feature inevitably reassigns him to command the next fighter that rolls off the production line, which is a complete waste of his talents.
Usually if I'm going to be using a lot of fighters, I tick the box on my large ship designs to bump up the officer ranks by one level so my XOs are e.g. CDRs instead of LCDRs.

Somewhere in the Suggestions thread I posted that it would be good to have the Reaction skill be the preferred skill for warship commanders in the auto-assignment algorithm instead of Crew Training, to reserve the latter skill for XO postings and since Reaction has no corresponding officer module (whereas Crew Training, Engineering, and Tactical do). It would also be really great if Fighter Combat was actually checked by the auto-assignment as I don't think it currently is.

Generally speaking, it would be nice if we somehow could define the rules for the auto selection in some place. Maybe Steve can rework it in a way that the rules are not hard coded but live in the DB and can be changed like rules for medals in a UI screen? It would also open up for individual play and promotion styles for different empires.
 
The following users thanked this post: Foxxonius Augustus, Sebmono, Density

Offline Density

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • D
  • Posts: 98
  • Thanked: 44 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #1817 on: June 02, 2021, 07:26:15 AM »
Generally speaking, it would be nice if we somehow could define the rules for the auto selection in some place. Maybe Steve can rework it in a way that the rules are not hard coded but live in the DB and can be changed like rules for medals in a UI screen? It would also open up for individual play and promotion styles for different empires.

I also would love to see some kind of player-defined rules for auto-assign beyond the current priority system.
Even just a tick box to define a ship design as less important than non-CO command positions would be huge.
 
The following users thanked this post: nuclearslurpee

Offline Density

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • D
  • Posts: 98
  • Thanked: 44 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #1818 on: June 02, 2021, 07:38:51 AM »
On a tangental note, not sure if this is a bug, but it'd be nice if Chief Engineers could gain experience in Engineering. (Or maybe I'm just getting extreme RNG on this point.)

So far my observations are that ENGs can gain Crew Training and Reaction, but not Engineering. (Naval Admins can gain Engineering, so it doesn't seem to be a non-trainable skill.) Which means that with auto assignments, commanders with Engineering get posted to ENG, then eventually gain Crew Training, then get moved to the next CO post on a fighter that opens up.

If this is a bug, I suspect it hasn't come up because I only started noticing the lack of Engineering experience after I stopped using auto assignments.
 

Offline Droll

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • D
  • Posts: 1704
  • Thanked: 599 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #1819 on: June 02, 2021, 08:02:49 AM »
On a tangental note, not sure if this is a bug, but it'd be nice if Chief Engineers could gain experience in Engineering. (Or maybe I'm just getting extreme RNG on this point.)

So far my observations are that ENGs can gain Crew Training and Reaction, but not Engineering. (Naval Admins can gain Engineering, so it doesn't seem to be a non-trainable skill.) Which means that with auto assignments, commanders with Engineering get posted to ENG, then eventually gain Crew Training, then get moved to the next CO post on a fighter that opens up.

If this is a bug, I suspect it hasn't come up because I only started noticing the lack of Engineering experience after I stopped using auto assignments.

I wonder if tactical has the same problem.
 

Offline Density

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • D
  • Posts: 98
  • Thanked: 44 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #1820 on: June 02, 2021, 01:32:41 PM »
I wonder if tactical has the same problem.

Just started retooling for a generation of ships with CICs, so I'll let you know what I see "soon."
 

Offline ChubbyPitbull

  • Gold Supporter
  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • *****
  • C
  • Posts: 138
  • Thanked: 27 times
  • Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
    2023 Supporter 2023 Supporter : Donate for 2023
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #1821 on: June 05, 2021, 07:34:32 PM »
Building on the ground formation enhancement suggestions, it would be nice when working on Ground Forces OOB, we could multi-select with shift-clicks or control clicks to easily drag multiple formations at once. So for example when moving 4 brigades to be under a division HQ, or when dropping all the STO units under an omnibus administrative HQ unit, I can do it all at once instead of having to individually move 20 units.

Also, when opening the Ground Forces OOB list, would also be nice if formations and drop-downs aren't auto-expanded; right now when I open it it expands random HQs so I have to scroll a long way to get to the colony I'm looking to work on.
 
The following users thanked this post: Sebmono

Offline xenoscepter

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1157
  • Thanked: 318 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #1822 on: June 05, 2021, 07:44:56 PM »
A few things I thought of; just gonna list 'em here for perusal at one's leisure. :)
Link to Standalone Thread Here ====> http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=12598.0

  -  A Jump Cooldown w/ Shock Mechanic Tweak: Have Jump Shock be tied to max Jump Tonnage as a function of Increments per 5HS, with 5 seconds minimum. Then multiply it by the number of ships jumped; 1.25x per ship for Squadron, 1.5x for Standard with the rates doubled for Commercial Drives. When under the effects of Jump Shock, ships cannot perform another jump, but a ship not suffering from jump shock CAN jump ships that are. Jump Shock would NOT be cumulative when this happens, simply being reset to either the new value or the old value, whichever is longer.

  -  Transit Drive: A type of Jump Drive that runs on fuel, allows instant transit between points within a system. I had the idea that it would use special fuel, and have it's own special fuel tanks to hold them with the base capacity being 1 Unit of Jump Fuel per HS. Each jump would require one unit of this "Jump Fuel" and larger Fuel Tanks would give more Jump Fuel per HS, but at the trade-off of being more expensive. Each Transit Drive could have at least one unit of Jump Fuel capacity built in, although larger drives might have more and REALLY small (like, Fighter-scale) would have none. These drives could also transit Jump Points, both stabilized and non-stabilized, but would only transit the ship mounting them in addition to giving higher amounts of Jump Shock than if an actual Jump Drive was used. If implemented with the above changes to Jump Drives, it would give double the amount if Military, but Triple if the Transit Drive was Commercial. Like regular Jump Drives, these would be tied to engine type.
Off-Topic: show

 --- Designing a Transit Drive would involve the following:

  1. Choosing a Jump Drive Efficiency, tied to the existing Tech, but with a 2x modifier applied.

  2. Choosing a Jump Drive Size.

  3. Choosing a Jump Fuel Capacity, new tech with the values "0" and "1" available from the start. Adds 1HS per unit of capacity. (Optional)

  -  "Pulse" Sensor: A variant of the Active Sensor that is smaller and more powerful than a regular version. Has a cooldown between uses and is significantly more visible than a regular Active Sensor of equal strength. Fluff wise the unit uses capacitors to "charge up" power and then releases it all at once to detect targets. Some ideas for implementation include:
Off-Topic: show

  1. A separate module that allows mounted sensors to be pulsed, with an order to go with it. This would make all mounted Active Sensors "pulse".

  2. Having them be their own sensor "type" selected from the same drop down as Missile FCS and tied to the "Turn Active Sensors On", but with a "ping" between them to represent the cooldown.

  3. Same as #2, but tied to it's own order like #1. This would allow only the "Pulse" Sensors to be fired, while allowing the active ones to remain on or off.

 --- Coding #1 would likely involve a new part type added along with new flags to check for it and possibly even new techs as well. Coding #2 might prove the easiest as it uses most of the existing framework, but just needs to be tied to the increments for the "ping". Coding #3 would require a new order set, much like #1, and could potentially generate a faux-missile centered on the ship doing the "pulse" that would generate the relative Active Sensor effect as well as the related EM spikes.

  -  Commercial Engine Change: Currently, to qualify as Commercial an engine must take up at least 1,250 Tons(25HS) and possess a Power Modifier of 50% or less. Under this suggestion the minimum size of engine would be tied to the power modifier. For every 10% less than 50, the HS requirement for an engine to be considered Commercial would be 5HS less. So, under this proposal we would have:
Off-Topic: show

  1,250 Tons(25HS) = 50% or less for Commercial Rating.

  1,000 Tons(20HS) = 40% or less for Commercial Rating.

    750 Tons(15HS) = 30% or less for Commercial Rating.

    500 Tons(10HS) = 20% or less for Commercial Rating.

    250 Tons(5HS) = 10% or less for Commercial Rating.
 
The following users thanked this post: Lord Solar

Offline Droll

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • D
  • Posts: 1704
  • Thanked: 599 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #1823 on: June 05, 2021, 08:20:20 PM »
Generally speaking, it would be nice if we somehow could define the rules for the auto selection in some place. Maybe Steve can rework it in a way that the rules are not hard coded but live in the DB and can be changed like rules for medals in a UI screen? It would also open up for individual play and promotion styles for different empires.

I also would love to see some kind of player-defined rules for auto-assign beyond the current priority system.
Even just a tick box to define a ship design as less important than non-CO command positions would be huge.

I have before suggested an "exclude class from auto-assignment" button.
As for choosing preferred properties for CO and bridge positions on a specific class of ship I think this is a good idea, especially since the game already does something like this with auto-assign governors.
 

Offline linkxsc

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 304
  • Thanked: 16 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #1824 on: June 05, 2021, 11:02:56 PM »
1. Per my attachment. On screens showing tasks and a "Completion date". Can't actually tell when techs, ships, ground units, and etc are actually going to be complete due to the date format being so... verbose.

Could you please update it such that the columns on these menus are resizeable. Or, if that proves to be annoying, maybe throw a radio button somewhere to set the date format to something smaller like YYYY/MM/DD/Monday?


2. Could we get some multi-select capability in the task force management screen? IE, ctrl clicking multiple ships in a fleet to drag to another fleet. Or perhaps shift clicking at the top and bottom of a group of ships to multi-select them.
Same goes for Ground Forces. Managing large armies can get extremely click intensive.
 

Offline Droll

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • D
  • Posts: 1704
  • Thanked: 599 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #1825 on: June 06, 2021, 10:28:23 AM »
2. Could we get some multi-select capability in the task force management screen? IE, ctrl clicking multiple ships in a fleet to drag to another fleet. Or perhaps shift clicking at the top and bottom of a group of ships to multi-select them.
Same goes for Ground Forces. Managing large armies can get extremely click intensive.

2. is possible for ships, instead of trying to select ships in the tree view, try ctrl-clicking or shift-clicking in the "ship list" tab of the naval org window.
For ground units it would be very nice to have this.
 

Offline YABG

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • Y
  • Posts: 45
  • Thanked: 22 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #1826 on: June 06, 2021, 12:35:05 PM »
Don't know if something like this has been suggested before, but I'd like to suggest a new game setting - asteroid richness and planetary richness.

Richness would be a percentage (default 100%) which changes how many minerals are spawned. We could have individual settings for asteroids and planets (comets could be separate or joint with asteroids) to further tailor a campaign.

You could have these settings be editable during the campaign, so if you want asteroid mining to be more important early on when you're putting about sol but then returning to normal once you leave you could do edit the mineral route easily.

Edit: further to that, I'd like to suggest that when you use the redo minerals button on a mineral less body, it repeats the routine until you get a result with minerals. There probably aren't very many cases where someone using redo minerals on a mineral less body wants it to remain a mineral less body, if that makes sense.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2021, 12:40:16 PM by YABG »
 
The following users thanked this post: Droll, serger, BAGrimm, skoormit, Sebmono, nuclearslurpee

Offline Density

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • D
  • Posts: 98
  • Thanked: 44 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #1827 on: June 06, 2021, 01:21:34 PM »
1. Per my attachment. On screens showing tasks and a "Completion date". Can't actually tell when techs, ships, ground units, and etc are actually going to be complete due to the date format being so... verbose.

Could you please update it such that the columns on these menus are resizeable. Or, if that proves to be annoying, maybe throw a radio button somewhere to set the date format to something smaller like YYYY/MM/DD/Monday?

This pulls from the long date format for windows, and can be changed in your windows settings.
 
The following users thanked this post: linkxsc, ISN

Offline Sebmono

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • S
  • Posts: 46
  • Thanked: 27 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #1828 on: June 06, 2021, 08:39:55 PM »
Was thinking today that something I would love to see is the ability to assign weapons to fire controls on the ship design screen, similar to how we can assign ordnance and fighter loadouts. This would be a huge timesaver for me! :)
 
The following users thanked this post: Kristover, QuakeIV, Droll, serger, Lord Solar, Density

Offline Droll

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • D
  • Posts: 1704
  • Thanked: 599 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #1829 on: June 06, 2021, 08:49:30 PM »
Was thinking today that something I would love to see is the ability to assign weapons to fire controls on the ship design screen, similar to how we can assign ordnance and fighter loadouts. This would be a huge timesaver for me! :)

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.
 
The following users thanked this post: Sebmono