Suggestions Thread for v2.0

[Andrew]

I suggested CSV simply because it is used elsewhere in Aurora so Steve, I presume, is already comfortable working with the format. I agree it is not a very good format but it is easy. For my money, Aurora would benefit from moving away from a DB model and using JSON files or some other relatively robust, readable format to store all the game data, but obviously I don't expect Steve to do all that work while the current system works perfectly fine for our needs. 

People screw up JSON and XML files all the time too! I have had national database updates broken because someone found a clever way to put invalid data into their JSON file which broke the process, not a deliberate thing just the way data entry works. Or because the XML/JSON was badly specified and then could not be altered as it was legally mandated in the broken format.   I suggested pipe seperated as it is CSV with a different seperator and one which is harder to break. Loading JSON files can also be fairly slow depending on the data volume so for live access to data systems Database are the standard for a reason, none of the organisations I work for or talk too have any plans to abandon databases for storage and operation, we get data submission via JSON and similar but that is transferring between organisations with seperate databases

[QuakeIV]

Databases are not meant to manage the configuration or active memory of an application, nor are they especially good at it.

[Ulzgoroth]

When attacked by missiles and no hits were scored, I still received a report of the damage per hit. That seems like intel I shouldn't get, considering no warhead detonation contacts occur.

[nuclearslurpee]

When attacked by missiles and no hits were scored, I still received a report of the damage per hit. That seems like intel I shouldn't get, considering no warhead detonation contacts occur.

I think the idea is that if the missiles explode, you can get readings of how big the boom was even if they don't actually hit anything.

[Ulzgoroth]

When attacked by missiles and no hits were scored, I still received a report of the damage per hit. That seems like intel I shouldn't get, considering no warhead detonation contacts occur.

I think the idea is that if the missiles explode, you can get readings of how big the boom was even if they don't actually hit anything.

If the missiles explode, there should be warhead detonation contacts, shouldn't there? But you only get those for the missiles that actually make contact. (At least for regular missiles, I haven't seen laser missiles yet.)

[Doc]

When a terraforming job finishes, it would be nice if double clicking the "Terraforming Report" event took me to the proper colonies environment screen.  This would be more in line with similar functionality already present when double clicking a completed construction event, shipyard event, research completion event, etc.

[Oafsalot]

I would very much like ctrl-f2 to return, I don't know if was intentional or not, but it was very very useful.

[Droll]

Would be nice if we could set artillery support in the organisation creation menu.

[nuclearslurpee]

This is recalling a previous suggestion here, but I think it is relevant with the changes to missile combat making missiles more of a featured system.

Suggestion: Make ground unit racial attack dependent on a dedicated tech line and independent of weapons tech lines.

Alternative: In addition to current techs, make ground unit attack also improve based on missile warhead, meson caliber, and optionally Gauss ROF and/or HPM caliber technologies.

Rationale: The main reason for this suggestion, which I gave in the linked post as well, is that currently ground unit attack only improves if you research certain weapon techs - specifically, only lasers, railguns, plasma, and particle beams will affect ground unit attack. This is a notable nerf to any race which wants to use missiles, mesons, Gauss, and HPM as it forces these races to research the former types of weapons even if they might not want to. Why should a race that uses missiles + Gauss be penalized for that choice or else forced to research a weapon type that may not match their roleplay philosophy?

I consider this particularly timely in light of the recent improvements to missile combat, if we want missiles to be more widely used and viable it does not make sense to nerf missiles on the strategic level (especially since missiles are already strategically the most difficult weapon type, research and logistics-wise) by having this negative side-effect for ground units. Furthermore, the distinction is arbitrary and makes no sense - many ground unit weapons can be modeled as missiles (ATGMs, SAMs, MLRSs, strategic bombardment weapons, etc.) so why should missile warhead tech not improve missile-based ground weapons. One might make the argument that spaceborne missiles are nuclear weapons and that tech should not affect ground force weapons, to such people I ask who are you to judge me for my choice of wartime atrocities? 

I would prefer making ground unit attack dependent on a dedicated tech line, because it: (1) is more transparent to the player IMO, (2) gives ground combat researchers something to do at higher tech levels, and (3) makes the balance of ground unit attack/armor accessible to DB modders. However, if it would be easier or preferred by Steve/the playerbase I would be fine with seeing missile and meson tech lines able to contribute to ground forces. Gauss and HPM could also contribute but I can see sensible lore-based reasons why they might not so I list them as optional.

[Froggiest1982]

This is recalling a previous suggestion here, but I think it is relevant with the changes to missile combat making missiles more of a featured system.

Suggestion: Make ground unit racial attack dependent on a dedicated tech line and independent of weapons tech lines.

Alternative: In addition to current techs, make ground unit attack also improve based on missile warhead, meson caliber, and optionally Gauss ROF and/or HPM caliber technologies.

Rationale: The main reason for this suggestion, which I gave in the linked post as well, is that currently ground unit attack only improves if you research certain weapon techs - specifically, only lasers, railguns, plasma, and particle beams will affect ground unit attack. This is a notable nerf to any race which wants to use missiles, mesons, Gauss, and HPM as it forces these races to research the former types of weapons even if they might not want to. Why should a race that uses missiles + Gauss be penalized for that choice or else forced to research a weapon type that may not match their roleplay philosophy?

I consider this particularly timely in light of the recent improvements to missile combat, if we want missiles to be more widely used and viable it does not make sense to nerf missiles on the strategic level (especially since missiles are already strategically the most difficult weapon type, research and logistics-wise) by having this negative side-effect for ground units. Furthermore, the distinction is arbitrary and makes no sense - many ground unit weapons can be modeled as missiles (ATGMs, SAMs, MLRSs, strategic bombardment weapons, etc.) so why should missile warhead tech not improve missile-based ground weapons. One might make the argument that spaceborne missiles are nuclear weapons and that tech should not affect ground force weapons, to such people I ask who are you to judge me for my choice of wartime atrocities? 

I would prefer making ground unit attack dependent on a dedicated tech line, because it: (1) is more transparent to the player IMO, (2) gives ground combat researchers something to do at higher tech levels, and (3) makes the balance of ground unit attack/armor accessible to DB modders. However, if it would be easier or preferred by Steve/the playerbase I would be fine with seeing missile and meson tech lines able to contribute to ground forces. Gauss and HPM could also contribute but I can see sensible lore-based reasons why they might not so I list them as optional.

I think this proposal got some legs, and I will incorporate it into my overall thinking to explore the possibility of a comprehensive overhaul of the ground unit research tree. The recent revision of ground units has brought to light potential limitations in the existing system as while we updated the ground units the tech tree is still anchored to the past IMHO.

In VB6, due to the composition of the ground units, there was a justified need to link several units to the research table. While I'll delve into this later, it was understandable but may not make much sense, especially when considering the need to research construction module to construct an engineer unit.

Considering that we already possess knowledge of engineering, it seems redundant to have to research it again simply to build a unit. With the new update system, you have the option to either design a new unit after discovering it and continually updating it, or you can auto-research all units by SM (System Manager) the relevant research and then progress. This aligns with my current approach, as I find it puzzling that we lack prior knowledge of these things, while I understand the needs of having to research a blueprint.

In conclusion, I would appreciate a system of "Upgrades," similar to the one proposed by nuclear, that enhances existing specialization rather than adhering to the current model. Ideally, we could have immediate access to all "military" units (I will still be open to researching construction and other elements for gameplay reasons).

Ideally, after selecting a unit, the unit composition could be presented as a series of panels, akin to the specialization ones, where you can decide on factors like Armor (S, M, L, XL), weapon base (kinetic, laser, etc.), and so on.

For instance, you could have a Medium Infantry with Forest terrain specialization, equipped with missiles as its primary weapon. How they use the missiles? Well we have already the CAP, AT, AV, and more, so that won't be a problem. Eventually, to extend this concept, you could also permit the inclusion of extra modules (similar to vehicle design) in all designs, further enhancing customization.

Naturally, researching the corresponding technologies would also contribute to the unit's differentiation, making ground units even more intriguing as we encounter similar dilemmas faced when designing ships.

[captainwolfer]

This is recalling a previous suggestion here, but I think it is relevant with the changes to missile combat making missiles more of a featured system.

Suggestion: Make ground unit racial attack dependent on a dedicated tech line and independent of weapons tech lines.

Alternative: In addition to current techs, make ground unit attack also improve based on missile warhead, meson caliber, and optionally Gauss ROF and/or HPM caliber technologies.

Rationale: The main reason for this suggestion, which I gave in the linked post as well, is that currently ground unit attack only improves if you research certain weapon techs - specifically, only lasers, railguns, plasma, and particle beams will affect ground unit attack. This is a notable nerf to any race which wants to use missiles, mesons, Gauss, and HPM as it forces these races to research the former types of weapons even if they might not want to. Why should a race that uses missiles + Gauss be penalized for that choice or else forced to research a weapon type that may not match their roleplay philosophy?

I consider this particularly timely in light of the recent improvements to missile combat, if we want missiles to be more widely used and viable it does not make sense to nerf missiles on the strategic level (especially since missiles are already strategically the most difficult weapon type, research and logistics-wise) by having this negative side-effect for ground units. Furthermore, the distinction is arbitrary and makes no sense - many ground unit weapons can be modeled as missiles (ATGMs, SAMs, MLRSs, strategic bombardment weapons, etc.) so why should missile warhead tech not improve missile-based ground weapons. One might make the argument that spaceborne missiles are nuclear weapons and that tech should not affect ground force weapons, to such people I ask who are you to judge me for my choice of wartime atrocities? 

I would prefer making ground unit attack dependent on a dedicated tech line, because it: (1) is more transparent to the player IMO, (2) gives ground combat researchers something to do at higher tech levels, and (3) makes the balance of ground unit attack/armor accessible to DB modders. However, if it would be easier or preferred by Steve/the playerbase I would be fine with seeing missile and meson tech lines able to contribute to ground forces. Gauss and HPM could also contribute but I can see sensible lore-based reasons why they might not so I list them as optional.

I think this proposal got some legs, and I will incorporate it into my overall thinking to explore the possibility of a comprehensive overhaul of the ground unit research tree. The recent revision of ground units has brought to light potential limitations in the existing system as while we updated the ground units the tech tree is still anchored to the past IMHO.

In VB6, due to the composition of the ground units, there was a justified need to link several units to the research table. While I'll delve into this later, it was understandable but may not make much sense, especially when considering the need to research construction module to construct an engineer unit.

Considering that we already possess knowledge of engineering, it seems redundant to have to research it again simply to build a unit. With the new update system, you have the option to either design a new unit after discovering it and continually updating it, or you can auto-research all units by SM (System Manager) the relevant research and then progress. This aligns with my current approach, as I find it puzzling that we lack prior knowledge of these things, while I understand the needs of having to research a blueprint.

In conclusion, I would appreciate a system of "Upgrades," similar to the one proposed by nuclear, that enhances existing specialization rather than adhering to the current model. Ideally, we could have immediate access to all "military" units (I will still be open to researching construction and other elements for gameplay reasons).

Ideally, after selecting a unit, the unit composition could be presented as a series of panels, akin to the specialization ones, where you can decide on factors like Armor (S, M, L, XL), weapon base (kinetic, laser, etc.), and so on.

For instance, you could have a Medium Infantry with Forest terrain specialization, equipped with missiles as its primary weapon. How they use the missiles? Well we have already the CAP, AT, AV, and more, so that won't be a problem. Eventually, to extend this concept, you could also permit the inclusion of extra modules (similar to vehicle design) in all designs, further enhancing customization.

Naturally, researching the corresponding technologies would also contribute to the unit's differentiation, making ground units even more intriguing as we encounter similar dilemmas faced when designing ships.

That sounds overcomplicated to me to be honest.

[kyonkundenwa]

Alternative: In addition to current techs, make ground unit attack also improve based on missile warhead, meson caliber, and optionally Gauss ROF and/or HPM caliber technologies.

I'm sure this has been brought up before but I still can't understand why ground force attack is based on the weapon size techs rather than the weapon "range" techs. Sample size 1 - Earth history - suggests that the effectiveness of ground forces weapons throughout a long period of technological advancement is defined mostly by muzzle velocity and resultant range rather than maximum size. Modern militaries today use small arms which fire projectiles a fraction of the size of historical projectiles at speeds an order of magnitude higher than historical projectiles, which is wholly independent of the maximum theoretical projectile size.

Making ground forces attack based on the range techs would remove the "plasma carronade problem" because it doesn't have range techs.

I think missile reload being the missile tech which affects ground forces attack would not be illogical, as another important factor in historical Earth weapon effectiveness is how quickly a weapon can be made ready to attack in repetition (consider the machine gun, or the interrupted screw).

I like the idea of "space navy" technology trickling down to the ground forces, I just think that using the caliber techs doesn't really do a good job of representing the march of technology.

[Froggiest1982]

Not sure about the rest of the players, but I would prefer for the checkbox "Act as a destination for Automated Refuel" to be unchecked by default.

Also, Could be good to have a similar one for maintenance as well.

Reason: Some posts are purely military and having your survey ships to eat up all your maintenance and fuel leaving the battle fleet dry it's tough. Also, I keep forgetting to untick it 

[Droll]

Ability to select multiple name themes when selecting the name themes for ships (at least when letting the game select a name randomly). Somewhat similar to how we can do it for commander names in the race menu.

[Droll]

Ability to set custom names for nodes in the ground organization tree. My use case is that I use a single hq template for the battalion level commander generically named "Battalion" and I use it for both armoured hierachies and infantry hierarchies. I would preferably like to rename the battalion formations to something like "Armoured Battalion" and "Infantry Battalion" respectively.

I could achieve the same effect by duplicating my battalion template and just giving it a new name, but then I've got duplicate templates clogging up the UI (and I'd have to remember to change all of them if I wan't to modify them).