C# Suggestions

[Barkhorn]

I'd like to see a similar thing for ships.  If I have officers available and captainless ships, it should match them up, even if the ranks might not make sense.  I am more upset by seeing an idle admiral and a commanderless corvette than I would be by seeing an admiral commanding a corvette.

[TMaekler]

I think that the assignment system in general works. Though it could be improved. For example usually a nation trains their commanders in the jobs they are going to embark into. Also according to the nations needs. So if a country needs 25 commanders, 15 captains they will train people for these jobs so they can perform those. If the quality lacks, that is another issue ... . But the game should check the vacancies and make some kind of training skills list needed to fill those vacancies. The universities then could train for those vacancies and newly trained commanders will graduate with a higher chance of having those skills. So over time those vacancies should fill up slowly but steadily.

[xenoscepter]

I'd like to see a similar thing for ships.  If I have officers available and captainless ships, it should match them up, even if the ranks might not make sense.  I am more upset by seeing an idle admiral and a commanderless corvette than I would be by seeing an admiral commanding a corvette.

 - It shouldn't auto-assign an Admiral to a Corvette unless you tell it to, mostly because IRL, or in this case let's go with an RP trying to mimic IRL as much as possible; that Admiral wouldn't want to command such a cramped ship, and by extension there wouldn't be too many people in the Navy who could order him(her) to do otherwise. There should be a toggle for ignoring over-ranked officers, and likewise you should be able to simply force an up-ranked officer to command whatever you assign them to.

[QuakeIV]

Or you could just not promote them out of their command if there is nothing available for them at the higher rank...

[Gabrote42]

My current game is locked into 6 hour increments due to NPRs. I really, really wish that we could have our time increments not be disturbed by their activity. I'm not even talking about when it goes down to 5 seconds because I understand computing battles must be harder on the game, but when nothing's happening, I really wish I could play with 5 day increments again.

I proposed a workaround for that earlier. Take a read, and if you want you can quote it and give me feedback.

[misanthropope]

in the global modifiers, i'd love to be able to modify (specifically increase) gate building time, and i'd love to be able to modify (specifically decrease) jump drive size (and by extension cost)

[Jorgen_CAB]

in the global modifiers, i'd love to be able to modify (specifically increase) gate building time, and i'd love to be able to modify (specifically decrease) jump drive size (and by extension cost)

I'm pretty sure you can  modify both of those values in the DB if you are up for it. I modify a bunch of stuff for most of my games to fit into my story and campaigns, quite simple to do. If everyone should get access to their preferred version of every component the list would get pretty long I imagine.   

[papent]

3 Minor Suggestions:

I) A 5 HS refuel system with 5000 LPH For Fighters and FAC's. Intent is a refuel system useful for small craft but too slow of refuel rate to be of any use on larger ships.

II) Squadron Transit Distance Applies to Departure system in addition to Arrival system. Intent is allow for rapid retreats or raiding parties to evade possible jump pickets.

III) Casemates options for non-turret weapons. Intent is to increase HTK for weapons such as missile launchers, railguns, plasma cannonades, and etc. by armoring them up.

[nuclearslurpee]

3 Minor Suggestions:

I) A 5 HS refuel system with 5000 LPH For Fighters and FAC's. Intent is a refuel system useful for small craft but too slow of refuel rate to be of any use on larger ships.

II) Squadron Transit Distance Applies to Departure system in addition to Arrival system. Intent is allow for rapid retreats or raiding parties to evade possible jump pickets.

III) Casemates options for non-turret weapons. Intent is to increase HTK for weapons such as missile launchers, railguns, plasma cannonades, and etc. by armoring them up.

I) is a simple change, possible as simple as a DB entry, and would not be very useful but would allow RP possibilities using tanker fighters to pull off long-range logistical missions. No reason not to add this I think.

II) is not a simple change, and would need to be balanced by a corresponding change so that smaller ships can jump farther than big ones. Otherwise it becomes trivial to evade JP pickets with even very large fleets - why send a raiding party when you can send the entire invasion?

III) would be amazing for RP as I sometimes like to RP with e.g. laser turrets but these are greatly impractical due to the wasted tonnage just to bring a turret up to the ship's tracking speed. However as this would mechanically overlap with turrets maybe a better change is to change turrets so that they add their speed to that of the ship (and reduce the gear efficiency per tech level to compensate)? The a turret with 0 km/s speed would not be a hindrance and you could still put armor on your weapons, but Steve only needs to adjust one mechanic instead of adding a new, semi-parallel one. Of course now we have the limitation that turrets can only be used with some weapon types...

[kilo]

I was thinking about and hoping for a jump point deconstruction module or a weapon of sorts that does the job. It would allow for scorched earth tactics and maybe close a jump point or stabilized intra-system jump point before an enemy fleet can follow.
There are quite a few useful applications for this in defensive warfare against superior empires.

[unkfester]

Plus one this 

[Erik L]

I was thinking about and hoping for a jump point deconstruction module or a weapon of sorts that does the job. It would allow for scorched earth tactics and maybe close a jump point or stabilized intra-system jump point before an enemy fleet can follow.
There are quite a few useful applications for this in defensive warfare against superior empires.

Since they are no longer physical gates, that is why you cannot destroy them. A destabilizer would be nice

[TheTalkingMeowth]

I was thinking about and hoping for a jump point deconstruction module or a weapon of sorts that does the job. It would allow for scorched earth tactics and maybe close a jump point or stabilized intra-system jump point before an enemy fleet can follow.
There are quite a few useful applications for this in defensive warfare against superior empires.

Since they are no longer physical gates, that is why you cannot destroy them. A destabilizer would be nice

Ha, wasn't the reason for changing from gates to stabilizers so that people would stop asking for a way to destroy them?

[serger]

Ha, wasn't the reason for changing from gates to stabilizers so that people would stop asking for a way to destroy them?

[papent]

snip
II) is not a simple change, and would need to be balanced by a corresponding change so that smaller ships can jump farther than big ones. Otherwise it becomes trivial to evade JP pickets with even very large fleets - why send a raiding party when you can send the entire invasion?
snip

It would scatter the entire invasion force around the arrival system jump point in small packets perfect for defeat-in-detail.
For a small group of stealth raiders I would risk it.
A planetary invasion taskforce with specialized Combatants it could be risky on how the ships get scattered and in which directions they get placed..