Author Topic: C# Suggestions  (Read 273162 times)

0 Members and 6 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline nuclearslurpee

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2991
  • Thanked: 2247 times
  • Radioactive frozen beverage.
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #1080 on: November 07, 2020, 07:14:39 PM »
The ability to reorder ground unit series would be immensely helpful for keeping things organized across multiple generations of ground units with evolving technology and doctrines.
 

Offline Alrune

  • Able Ordinary Rate
  • A
  • Posts: 2
  • Thanked: 4 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #1081 on: November 08, 2020, 06:20:46 AM »
standing order: Move to System Requiring Gravsurvey or Geosurvey to go with the Survey next three system bodies or locations that was added
 
The following users thanked this post: Droll

Offline rtyler

  • Pusher of Buttons
  • Able Ordinary Rate
  • r
  • Posts: 2
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #1082 on: November 08, 2020, 09:35:20 AM »
Officers should be able to not only improve their current skills, but develop new ones if placed in a ship that need it.  IE.  If i dont have any officers with survey, but i assign someone to a DSS ship, they should eventually learn a thing or two about how survey works.
 

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2796
  • Thanked: 1054 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #1083 on: November 08, 2020, 01:27:04 PM »
Officers should be able to not only improve their current skills, but develop new ones if placed in a ship that need it.  IE.  If i dont have any officers with survey, but i assign someone to a DSS ship, they should eventually learn a thing or two about how survey works.
Administrators certainly pick up new skills - I thought naval officers also did?
 

Offline TheTalkingMeowth

  • Captain
  • **********
  • T
  • Posts: 494
  • Thanked: 203 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
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #1084 on: November 08, 2020, 05:27:11 PM »
They do. The precise example given (learn to survey) happens all the time. I have a bunch of 1% survey skill officers now. It is very amusing.
 

Offline Froggiest1982

  • Gold Supporter
  • Vice Admiral
  • *****
  • F
  • Posts: 1334
  • Thanked: 592 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 #1085 on: November 08, 2020, 09:57:06 PM »
Abilitate Delete key to work as a delete button. Very handy while canceling many fleets and reorganizing your admin commands.

Collapse all and regroup all button


Offline Aloriel

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 184
  • Thanked: 90 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #1086 on: November 09, 2020, 01:24:17 PM »
I would love to see a line chart on the Empire Minerals tab of the economy window that depicts your stockpile of the various minerals. With such a line chart, we could see the trend of our mineral production and do something about it before we get to critical levels.

Options for the chart:
Ability to depict stockpile levels of each mineral individually
Ability to display data accrued over the last month, year, 5 years, and 10 years with data points every 5 days, weekly, monthly, and quarterly (respectively), or allow these choices of data points to be adjustable
Ability to choose an individual planet's stockpile to display as well as the entire empire's stockpiles

One additional advantage for this chart is that there is a ton of space on the Empire Minerals tab just begging for a chart. :)


Rationale:
As it stands right now, you only see the stockpile change over the past 5 days. However, you can't see the spikes you might be getting (up or down) that actually create a trend. For example, I could be running a deficit on Corundium, but can't see the 25,000 that a freighter is carrying to Earth and suddenly dumps it. It would appear that I am losing Corundium, but in fact, I am gaining because the freighter has more in it than the losses add up to. The same can happen on a downward trend, where you happen to look just after a mass driver delivery, but you missed the two negative days between that add up to a greater decline than the delivery.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2020, 01:31:48 PM by Aloriel »
Sarah
Game Developer in Unity and UE4 and 5
 

Offline TheTalkingMeowth

  • Captain
  • **********
  • T
  • Posts: 494
  • Thanked: 203 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
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #1087 on: November 09, 2020, 02:59:33 PM »
I would love to see a line chart on the Empire Minerals tab of the economy window that depicts your stockpile of the various minerals. With such a line chart, we could see the trend of our mineral production and do something about it before we get to critical levels.

Options for the chart:
Ability to depict stockpile levels of each mineral individually
Ability to display data accrued over the last month, year, 5 years, and 10 years with data points every 5 days, weekly, monthly, and quarterly (respectively), or allow these choices of data points to be adjustable
Ability to choose an individual planet's stockpile to display as well as the entire empire's stockpiles

One additional advantage for this chart is that there is a ton of space on the Empire Minerals tab just begging for a chart. :)


Rationale:
As it stands right now, you only see the stockpile change over the past 5 days. However, you can't see the spikes you might be getting (up or down) that actually create a trend. For example, I could be running a deficit on Corundium, but can't see the 25,000 that a freighter is carrying to Earth and suddenly dumps it. It would appear that I am losing Corundium, but in fact, I am gaining because the freighter has more in it than the losses add up to. The same can happen on a downward trend, where you happen to look just after a mass driver delivery, but you missed the two negative days between that add up to a greater decline than the delivery.

Related: it would be nice if the empire stockpile looked only at production and consumption for showing the change. As it stands, it appears to just look at the total minerals on all colonies and look at the delta. If the delta instead was "minerals produced in past cycle-minerals consumed in past cycle" it would be far more useful, since right now the data gets distorted by mass drivers and freighters moving minerals around. And really, what I need to know is: did I produce more than I consumed?
 

Offline nuclearslurpee

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2991
  • Thanked: 2247 times
  • Radioactive frozen beverage.
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #1088 on: November 11, 2020, 05:27:31 PM »
When commander auto-assign is unchecked, it would be nice if commander "auto-unassign" was also turned off. It's annoying in the early game when you don't have enough skilled officers to go around and need to micromanage commands, and it's annoying throughout the game when dealing with specialized roles (survey, etc.)
 
The following users thanked this post: serger

Offline Tavik Toth

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • T
  • Posts: 33
  • Thanked: 3 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #1089 on: November 12, 2020, 07:16:12 PM »
Hm, not sure if someone's asked this before, but how practical would it be to add a aircraft type to the ground forces designs to represent VTOLs and the like?
 

Offline Froggiest1982

  • Gold Supporter
  • Vice Admiral
  • *****
  • F
  • Posts: 1334
  • Thanked: 592 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 #1090 on: November 12, 2020, 07:55:40 PM »
Hm, not sure if someone's asked this before, but how practical would it be to add a aircraft type to the ground forces designs to represent VTOLs and the like?

I honestly think would be awesome and I did ask this too.

I dont like PODs and also currently AA combat is not active. It will make easier for AI to handle that and abilitate AA on ground level will be probably easier as the mechenic will be confined in that framework without the need of moving into fleet level (ships, fighters and pods).

Fighters can fight above orbit vs other fighter and orbital bombardment will still be a thing countered by STO.
 
The following users thanked this post: Tavik Toth

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2796
  • Thanked: 1054 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #1091 on: November 13, 2020, 11:10:09 AM »
There is nothing in the game that says what each vehicle category is, just their general weight and size which prohibits how much armour they can carry and what weapons can fit into them. Whether it's rolling on wheels, chugging on tracks, flying on jets, walking on hydraulic legs, or even hovering thanks to anti-gravity plate, is all up to the player and their imagination and the story they are telling.

The ground combat model only understands the concept of the front line, support area and rear area because it supports both a handful of space marines shooting it out on a tiny asteroid as well as fifty million soul strong combined arms army group pulverizing a Super-Earth planet.

Which means that there is no point in determining whether a specific unit walks or swims or flies. All vehicles can achieve breakthrough already - whether that means German tanks driving through the Ardennes forest or American helicopters flying over Vietnamese jungle is mechanically meaningless. There already is a weapon that can reach enemy Rear Area and multiple weapons that can reach Support Area.

Time-wise, it would be much better for Steve to fix planetary support fighters, AAA and STO, as well as give NPR/spoilers the ability to use them.

Of course, if you can come up with a new, novel mechanic that adds to the ground combat model, then, by all means, do write it all down - but adding planes as a ground unit alone is a waste of time. Not to mention that you would have to make all sorts of exceptions to it to explain how helicopters/aeroplanes can operate on airless rocks in space as well as Venusian planets.
 

Offline xenoscepter

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1157
  • Thanked: 318 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #1092 on: November 13, 2020, 11:51:07 AM »
There is nothing in the game that says what each vehicle category is, just their general weight and size which prohibits how much armour they can carry and what weapons can fit into them. Whether it's rolling on wheels, chugging on tracks, flying on jets, walking on hydraulic legs, or even hovering thanks to anti-gravity plate, is all up to the player and their imagination and the story they are telling.

The ground combat model only understands the concept of the front line, support area and rear area because it supports both a handful of space marines shooting it out on a tiny asteroid as well as fifty million soul strong combined arms army group pulverizing a Super-Earth planet.

Which means that there is no point in determining whether a specific unit walks or swims or flies. All vehicles can achieve breakthrough already - whether that means German tanks driving through the Ardennes forest or American helicopters flying over Vietnamese jungle is mechanically meaningless. There already is a weapon that can reach enemy Rear Area and multiple weapons that can reach Support Area.

Time-wise, it would be much better for Steve to fix planetary support fighters, AAA and STO, as well as give NPR/spoilers the ability to use them.

Of course, if you can come up with a new, novel mechanic that adds to the ground combat model, then, by all means, do write it all down - but adding planes as a ground unit alone is a waste of time. Not to mention that you would have to make all sorts of exceptions to it to explain how helicopters/aeroplanes can operate on airless rocks in space as well as Venusian planets.

 - VTOLs and Heavy VTOLs could be a ground unit with better Hit Mods in exchange for having 0 Self Fortification and 0 Max Fortification. The VTOLs would have better hit mods than Light Vehicles, maybe a 0.2, but worse armor... more akin to Light Infantry, maybe a 1x or 1.25x modifier. Heavy VTOLs would have a 0.3 Hit Mod but have armor closer to Power Armored Infantry, 1.5x or 1.75x. Additionally they could use any terrain modifications except Boarding Capable, to account for things like FLIR (Jungles) and "mast mounted" RADAR (Mountains / Rift Valley) or special training to fight better in tractless lands (Desert). I say mast mounted RADAR, but the Aurora VTOLs would basically be flying with Trans-Newtonian engines like the ships.

 - The VTOLs and Heavy VTOLs couldn't mount Logistics Modules; the VTOL would have one module slot and the Heavy VTOL would have two. The Heavy VTOLs could mount Geological Survey and Xeno-Archaeology modules, but not Construction Equipment; while the regular VTOLs couldn't mount any of those. Perhaps the VTOLs could have a tech for "Improved VTOL Armor" taking the regular VTOLs armor from 1x to 1.25x and the Heavy VTOLs from 1.5x to 1.75x Just spitballing.
« Last Edit: November 13, 2020, 12:00:39 PM by xenoscepter »
 

Offline Anamori

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • A
  • Posts: 13
  • Thanked: 2 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #1093 on: November 13, 2020, 02:20:21 PM »
Low priority, small suggestion for uncommon case:

Allow fighter/shuttle (<500t vessel) to load/unload colonist without cargo shuttle station/spaceport on targeted celestial body. We can't put cargo shuttle module (500t) inside -shuttle- but it still should be able to land on planet according to lore:

Quote
Cargo Shuttle Bays

Part of the background in C# Aurora will be that large TN ships function only in space and cannot move any closer to planetary bodies than low orbit. Small craft below a limit of 500 tons, such as fighters and shuttles, are capable of landing on planets. Ship are built in orbit and habitats are assembled in orbit. Only fighters can be built on the ground.

 My example design I was testing it with:

Code: [Select]
K-Orzel STK wz 1 class Shuttle      499 tons       11 Crew       58.3 BP       TCS 10    TH 7    EM 0
722 km/s      Armour 1-5       Shields 0-0       HTK 3      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 0
Maint Life 8.65 Years     MSP 25    AFR 6%    IFR 0.1%    1YR 1    5YR 9    Max Repair 20 MSP
Cryogenic Berths 1 000   
Lieutenant Commander    Control Rating 1   BRG   
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months    Morale Check Required   

Improved Nuclear Pulse Engine  EP7.20 (1)    Power 7.2    Fuel Use 19.08%    Signature 7.20    Explosion 4%
Fuel Capacity 1 000 Litres    Range 1.9 billion km (30 days at full power)

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction

It isn't important or commonly used/needed, just a little oddity that may be intentional and I accidentally noticed. Feel free to totally ignore it.
 

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2796
  • Thanked: 1054 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #1094 on: November 14, 2020, 06:25:37 PM »
An expanded version of this has already been suggested here: http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=11946.0

The inability of fighters to load/unload is a bug.