Author Topic: C# Suggestions  (Read 266141 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DEEPenergy

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • Posts: 55
  • Thanked: 35 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #2385 on: January 25, 2022, 04:54:02 PM »
I know its been suggested before but some way to retool or upgrade ground units & templates to use new racial weapon and armor techs as they unlock would be awesome
 
The following users thanked this post: Sebmono

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2782
  • Thanked: 1049 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #2386 on: January 25, 2022, 09:44:43 PM »
I know its been suggested before but some way to retool or upgrade ground units & templates to use new racial weapon and armor techs as they unlock would be awesome
Button to update your existing unit templates to use the latest racial weapon and armour tech while also renaming them with a running number scheme that can be edited by player like prefix and suffix for ships, which the player can then research at their convenience.

You'll end up with:

Cannon 21
Cannon 22
Cannon 23
Cannon 24

and so on. This way there wouldn't be multiple units with same name and no need for player to manually create units. Players would still need to research them so it isn't a cheat button, just a QoL change.

Formations don't need to be automated because we have unit series already.
 

Online nuclearslurpee

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2960
  • Thanked: 2222 times
  • Radioactive frozen beverage.
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #2387 on: January 25, 2022, 10:05:53 PM »
I know its been suggested before but some way to retool or upgrade ground units & templates to use new racial weapon and armor techs as they unlock would be awesome
[...]
Formations don't need to be automated because we have unit series already.

I'd honestly prefer to have the Unit Series system be automated so that units of the same design (base class, weapons, etc.) are automatically placed into a series together and formations are built out of unit series rather than specific units. With that done, upgrading can be as simple as paying for the difference in stats from one unit in the series to the next with some premium similar to ship refitting.
 
The following users thanked this post: Scandinavian, El Pip, Vandermeer, mike2R, Droll, DEEPenergy, BAGrimm, Sebmono, alex_g

Offline M_Gargantua

  • Gold Supporter
  • Leading Rate
  • *****
  • M
  • Posts: 14
  • Thanked: 1 times
  • 2023 Supporter 2023 Supporter : Donate for 2023
    Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #2388 on: January 26, 2022, 08:40:25 AM »
To go along with the 1. 13 Ordinal numbering (which I love):

To be in line with way armies speak either put the number first, or after a comma.  eg IV Infantry Division or Infantry Division, IV

Also, I'd like to see a slightly larger change; instead of per template add a template design "class" similar to ship design.  Ground unit class can be anything user defined, but anything that shares the same class gets numbered together.  Such that if I had three templates "Expeditionary Corps", "Armored Corps", and "Example" all under one class it would create "I Expeditionary Corps", "II Armored Corps", and "III Example", or "1st Expeditionary Corps", "2nd Armored Corps", and "3rd Example".

Similarly if you wanted two formations to have independent numbering sequences you could put them under separate class.  Formations "EX1" and "EX2" with classes of "(COM) Company" and "(COM) Marine Company", would create "1st EX1" and "1st EX2" on creation.

Class could also be set to set the default abbreviation and rank for a new template.
 

Offline SevenOfCarina

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 170
  • Thanked: 95 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #2389 on: January 27, 2022, 08:17:04 AM »
I think I've suggested this before, but whatever : make missile warheads increase in efficiency with size, like shields do now. Use this formula instead of the current one:
Warhead Strength = (Warhead Size in MSP) * (Warhead Strength per MSP) * SQRT(Warhead Size in MSP)

I've tested this before (by editing the DB after finalising missile designs), and it seems to work pretty well at making larger missiles more effective and at addressing the AMM spam problem at high tech. An AMM with a levitated-pit implosion warhead would need ~0.4 MSP for the warhead instead of 0.25 MSP, while one with an antimatter warhead would need ~0.14 MSP instead of 0.05 MSP. This penalises warheads that are too small and provides strong advantages to going larger, which should hopefully offset some of the issues with large missiles doing poor damage against strong point-defence.
 
The following users thanked this post: LiquidGold2, nakorkren

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2782
  • Thanked: 1049 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #2390 on: January 27, 2022, 05:52:34 PM »
To go along with the 1. 13 Ordinal numbering (which I love):

To be in line with way armies speak either put the number first, or after a comma.  eg IV Infantry Division or Infantry Division, IV

Also, I'd like to see a slightly larger change; instead of per template add a template design "class" similar to ship design.  Ground unit class can be anything user defined, but anything that shares the same class gets numbered together.  Such that if I had three templates "Expeditionary Corps", "Armored Corps", and "Example" all under one class it would create "I Expeditionary Corps", "II Armored Corps", and "III Example", or "1st Expeditionary Corps", "2nd Armored Corps", and "3rd Example".

Similarly if you wanted two formations to have independent numbering sequences you could put them under separate class.  Formations "EX1" and "EX2" with classes of "(COM) Company" and "(COM) Marine Company", would create "1st EX1" and "1st EX2" on creation.

Class could also be set to set the default abbreviation and rank for a new template.
While this is a good suggestion in general, the fact is that armies have a bewildering array of naming conventions. These include Roman and Arabic numerals and letters, using a comma or a period or nothing, using commander names instead of numbers, and so on. For example:

1st Armored Division "Old Ironsides"
1. Panzer-Division
1st (United Kingdom) Armoured Division
Panssaridivisioona
1re Division Blindée

these are all technically the same formation but there is no way to have an automated system to be able to name them logically.

The current system is good enough as it is, letting you switch between Roman and Arabic numerals. What I would like to see is a way to rename multiple formations at the same time following the same principle using wildcards, like was possible back in MS-DOS days for files. This way it's easy enough to rename series of formations the way you want without needing to have a cumbersome automated system that will never be 100% accurate anyway. Something like Ctrl/Shift click several formations, click Rename button and then use * and $ (and $$, $$$, $$$$$ and so on) to use parts of the original name and to have a running number.
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • J
  • Posts: 2826
  • Thanked: 673 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #2391 on: January 27, 2022, 05:54:54 PM »
I think I've suggested this before, but whatever : make missile warheads increase in efficiency with size, like shields do now. Use this formula instead of the current one:
Warhead Strength = (Warhead Size in MSP) * (Warhead Strength per MSP) * SQRT(Warhead Size in MSP)

I've tested this before (by editing the DB after finalising missile designs), and it seems to work pretty well at making larger missiles more effective and at addressing the AMM spam problem at high tech. An AMM with a levitated-pit implosion warhead would need ~0.4 MSP for the warhead instead of 0.25 MSP, while one with an antimatter warhead would need ~0.14 MSP instead of 0.05 MSP. This penalises warheads that are too small and provides strong advantages to going larger, which should hopefully offset some of the issues with large missiles doing poor damage against strong point-defence.

This is a pretty good and simple solution. I think this could easily be introduced into the game without that many complications. Some changes to NPR designs might be needed as lower tech AMM will likely become larger if they want to hit anything. The exact formula can brobably beb debated but the solution would be pretty solid.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2022, 05:59:27 PM by Jorgen_CAB »
 

Online nuclearslurpee

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2960
  • Thanked: 2222 times
  • Radioactive frozen beverage.
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #2392 on: January 27, 2022, 06:38:19 PM »
I think I wouldn't want to make AMM warheads too much larger as this would significantly reduce AMM performance particularly at low tech levels while having minimal impact at higher tech levels. 0.4 MSP versus 0.25 MSP is quite extreme as it would reduce speed and thus, approximately, AMM hit rate by nearly 25%. If we scale it to the MSP required for a 1-damage warhead (which is just 1/tech level), then we can use an expression like (Size*Strength per MSP)^(3/2) which is perhaps not so intuitive for players but makes higher-damage missiles more feasible while preserving AMM capabilities.

A better way to pull back high-tech AMMs would be to reduce the missile agility gain per tech level. Currently it is something quite ridiculous: 20 per MSP, then 32, then 48, then 64... basically the early levels increase very quickly and then agility is inflated for all the tech levels. In my modded DB I have adjusted the early levels to 20, 25, 32, 40, ... in the same pattern as most numerical-valued techs in the game, and agility caps out at 250 per MSP which is not quite enough to create 100% hitrate AMMs at MaxTech without sacrificing ECCM (I think you can reach about 80-85% from a quick calculation; of course you can reach 100% without ECCM, but then ECM makes your AMMs useless). The impact is not too great at lower techs because most of the AMM hit rate comes from the engine techs until you reach the middle tiers anyways, so on balance coupled with the above change to damage it should work fairly well.
 
The following users thanked this post: BAGrimm

Offline Desdinova

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • D
  • Posts: 280
  • Thanked: 280 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #2393 on: January 28, 2022, 10:16:00 AM »
I like to use multiple name themes to represent a united Earth government. It would be nice to be able to export/import commander name themes and weights the way we do medals and event text colors.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2022, 10:19:29 AM by Desdinova »
 
The following users thanked this post: Scandinavian

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • J
  • Posts: 2826
  • Thanked: 673 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #2394 on: January 28, 2022, 04:47:11 PM »
I think I wouldn't want to make AMM warheads too much larger as this would significantly reduce AMM performance particularly at low tech levels while having minimal impact at higher tech levels. 0.4 MSP versus 0.25 MSP is quite extreme as it would reduce speed and thus, approximately, AMM hit rate by nearly 25%. If we scale it to the MSP required for a 1-damage warhead (which is just 1/tech level), then we can use an expression like (Size*Strength per MSP)^(3/2) which is perhaps not so intuitive for players but makes higher-damage missiles more feasible while preserving AMM capabilities.

A better way to pull back high-tech AMMs would be to reduce the missile agility gain per tech level. Currently it is something quite ridiculous: 20 per MSP, then 32, then 48, then 64... basically the early levels increase very quickly and then agility is inflated for all the tech levels. In my modded DB I have adjusted the early levels to 20, 25, 32, 40, ... in the same pattern as most numerical-valued techs in the game, and agility caps out at 250 per MSP which is not quite enough to create 100% hitrate AMMs at MaxTech without sacrificing ECCM (I think you can reach about 80-85% from a quick calculation; of course you can reach 100% without ECCM, but then ECM makes your AMMs useless). The impact is not too great at lower techs because most of the AMM hit rate comes from the engine techs until you reach the middle tiers anyways, so on balance coupled with the above change to damage it should work fairly well.

The point about changing the strength of the warhead really have nothing to do with AMM... but changing the agility and flatten the curve will fix AMM, I do that with DB all the time. I like to have AMM be roughly equally valuable throughout an entire game. I tend to flatten the agility per MSP around 100... starting out at around 80 and end around 125... that produce AMM with hit rates around 25-40% depending on tech levels and if you need ECCM in them or not.

Starting Agility at 20 is a joke in my opinion as it is completely useless for AMM purposes, no point in using AMM at that point... AMM don't start to produce any result until at least above 60 per MSP. If you also need ECCM you need a bit more agility as well for the same hit rates.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2022, 04:50:33 PM by Jorgen_CAB »
 

Offline Desdinova

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • D
  • Posts: 280
  • Thanked: 280 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #2395 on: January 29, 2022, 02:03:21 PM »
Super minor thing but does anyone else think some of the medal award criterias are a bit optimistic? Specifically the "Discover 100 new systems" and "Discover 1000 system bodies with minerals" conditions. Careers just don't last long enough to achieve those unless you start with a very high tech level and/or make your survey captains story characters and never reassign them.
 

Offline xenoscepter

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1154
  • Thanked: 317 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #2396 on: January 29, 2022, 02:49:18 PM »
Kinetic Missile Warhead:
 --- A warhead which requires no MSP, but provides a Strength equal to Missile Size, down to a minimum Strength of 1.
 
The following users thanked this post: LiquidGold2

Offline ArcWolf

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • A
  • Posts: 160
  • Thanked: 80 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #2397 on: January 29, 2022, 06:49:41 PM »
Kinetic Missile Warhead:
 --- A warhead which requires no MSP, but provides a Strength equal to Missile Size, down to a minimum Strength of 1.

so a size 2 missile would do 2 damage and a size 6 would do 6?

I mean it's a cool idea, but then it's essentially long range, slow firing beam weapons with limited ammo. Would you keep the missile damage pattern or change it to something like laser damage pattern?
 

Offline Droll

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • D
  • Posts: 1703
  • Thanked: 599 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #2398 on: January 29, 2022, 08:33:36 PM »
Kinetic Missile Warhead:
 --- A warhead which requires no MSP, but provides a Strength equal to Missile Size, down to a minimum Strength of 1.

so a size 2 missile would do 2 damage and a size 6 would do 6?

I mean it's a cool idea, but then it's essentially long range, slow firing beam weapons with limited ammo. Would you keep the missile damage pattern or change it to something like laser damage pattern?

Having good armor penetration at missile ranges would definitely be a new capability. Probably wouldn't be too unbalanced given that the price you are paying is incredible damage inefficiency. Even at base tech 1 MSP warhead is 3 damage.

On the other hand you'd need something to pad out missile size for this to make sense and be anywhere close to cost-viable. Some sort of field for empty hull in MSP. Otherwise you are forced to put fuel that's not going to get burned at combat ranges.
 

Online nuclearslurpee

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2960
  • Thanked: 2222 times
  • Radioactive frozen beverage.
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #2399 on: January 29, 2022, 11:38:22 PM »
Super minor thing but does anyone else think some of the medal award criterias are a bit optimistic? Specifically the "Discover 100 new systems" and "Discover 1000 system bodies with minerals" conditions. Careers just don't last long enough to achieve those unless you start with a very high tech level and/or make your survey captains story characters and never reassign them.

Yes. I mod these to reasonable values and also add several more steps to most criteria.

Kinetic Missile Warhead:
 --- A warhead which requires no MSP, but provides a Strength equal to Missile Size, down to a minimum Strength of 1.

There are several problems:
  • Flavor-wise, the kinetic energy of even a size-1 missile at typical missile speeds vastly exceeds the damage from a typical warhead and would probably destroy most ships outright on impact, so to make these make sense you either have to completely obsolete nuclear missiles or give kinetic missiles a very, very low hit chance (reflecting that nuclear missiles need to explode close to the target, while kinetic missiles require a direct hit). Neither option is appealing.
  • As a completely flat effect (damage ==  missile size), this would be overpowered at low tech evels and underpowered at high tech levels. This would basically mean every low-tech missile would be kinetic and every high-tech missile would be nuclear - no actually interesting gameplay decision is introduced.
  • In particular, AMMs are straight buffed by this as they only ever need a 1-damage warhead and making that damage free for the low, low price of just making a size-1 missile means all warhead space will go to engines and agility. I don't think this would be a popular consequence with players given the common complaints about AMM spam.
Overall it is not a suggestion I could support.

On the other hand you'd need something to pad out missile size for this to make sense and be anywhere close to cost-viable. Some sort of field for empty hull in MSP. Otherwise you are forced to put fuel that's not going to get burned at combat ranges.

Not sure where this is going...if you take out the warhead, the empty space would be filled by some combination of engine/agility/fuel MSP to reach a desired performance characteristic. Honestly, about the only use cases I can imagine beyond low-tech (when kinetic warheads are strictly the best) would (1) extreme long-range missiles (low damage is counterbalanced by striking from well beyond range of any retaliation or (2) AMMs (blatantly OP, please do not do this).