Post by: Steve Walmsley on August 17, 2010, 06:34:19 AM
Steve
Post by: Caplin on August 17, 2010, 12:05:30 PM
The coordinate system in 5.20 for the system map seems to be working great so far.
It would work even better if I could click on the labels of bodies and change map focus to them that way.
Is such a thing already supposed to happen, and I'm merely clicking in the wrong spot?
Either way, thanks for creating such a wonderful game and continuing to improve it.
All the best,
Zack.
Post by: Erik L on August 17, 2010, 02:21:29 PM
Part of the Basic Parameters of a new game, in addition to year, allow month and day to be set for game start.
Post by: Erik L on August 17, 2010, 04:42:34 PM
Post by: iamlenb on August 17, 2010, 10:03:59 PM
I thought I'd second the smart mines suggestion and expand a bit on espionage.
Quote from: "Xaoc"
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"I don't mean from a programming sense. I mean in a real world sense. For example, how does a mine laid by a British minelayer in 1940 know the Germans are now our allies? When you lay a mine in Aurora, it could not realistically know about any changes in the political situation. That's why it is set to only ignore the race that laid it.
Steve
Ships are in contact with the central HQ(government, admiralty or what have you), I can't see why high tech mines couldn't have such communications as well. Sure communications like that could expose the mines to third party sensors, but the communications could be wide ranging(eg. the message is sent to all systems in range) and thus not pinpoint the location of the mines. The communication system is currently abstracted anyway and there is no form of electronic warfare that targets communications currently either(room for future expansion? Then again even current encryptions are unfeasible for decryption and without inside support via diplomacy or espionage it would take way too long to decrypt messages for it to be of tactical use). I'm of the mind that remotely updated IFF protocols are completely viable.
Have a mine control module within active sensor range of minefields to engage in smart targeting. An OWP at a jump point could control all mines in range, perhaps with a numerical limit of mines set by a control channels stat and response time stat upgradable through research. Set to either active or disabled, response time dictating the status change much like the awaiting acknowledgement from changing TG orders in combat.
Espionage comes into play just like acquiring research data from NPRs. There could be a research project for discovering an NPR IFF Algorithm. Getting current IFF Data through espionage should implement it throughout your fleet until it goes stale, and doesn't have to be researched. Picking up lifepods might give a chance of current minefield IFF settings, especially if you "rescue" the commanding officer. A stealthed sensor ship in passive sensor range of an NPR transiting a minefield as a friendly should get some IFF data as well, maybe not enough to decode, but adding RP to the IFF Algorithm research project back home.
Hmm, maybe this suggestion should be expanded to cover Electronic Warfare in general.
Post by: IanD on August 18, 2010, 10:12:35 AM
I also have a little problem about gaining intelligence on a "foreign" missile and immediately being able to build it, even though it could be several tech levels above the gaining empires current tech. An advance in tech would be better.
Regards
Post by: georgiaboy1966 on August 23, 2010, 04:39:13 PM
Could we not now have orbital colonies around gas giants as fuel depot/colonies.
I have run into several systems that only have a single gas giant with no moons. The OH's would be the perfect way to make these systems useful as fuel depots, sensor stations, maintanence bases out in the middle of no where.
Post by: Vanigo on August 24, 2010, 12:23:09 PM
Post by: Vanderer on August 24, 2010, 06:50:31 PM
It was not the first time, i have see this behavior a couple of times before, so i don't think is a bug.Same for fleets, they didn't know when stop fighting and retreat. When you don't have any chance to win,no more armour, and big damages for example, what the point of fighting? In my games, they always continue full speed on your fleet...
I know, Ai is very difficult to program but...well, it is just a suggestion.
Post by: Andrew on August 25, 2010, 10:20:15 AM
Quote from: "Vanderer"
Better AI. In my last game, i have discovered an Alien planet, with a fleet nearby. The fleet attacked me,and was destroyed. After than i have attacked the ships in orbit out of their range, and they didn't move at all. They just stay in orbit and obviously were destroyed.The Ships in orbit where probably bases with no movement
Same for fleets, they didn't know when stop fighting and retreat. When you don't have any chance to win,no more armour, and big damages for example, what the point of fighting? In my games, they always continue full speed on your fleet...
I know, Ai is very difficult to program but...well, it is just a suggestion.
Post by: Vanderer on August 25, 2010, 01:44:21 PM
Post by: Beersatron on August 30, 2010, 12:53:29 AM
At the moment I have 5 Shipping Lines and they do the Earth-Mars run 99% of the time, the other 1% will see the odd ship nip next door to Barnard and back again.
I have a total of 5 well developed 0.0 planets all within 3 jumps of each other yet the other 2 planets get no trade at all. One of them is has 150million pop, spaceports and a 20k Naval Shipyard plus very good mineral extraction industry - government and civilian.
I would suggest that some basic pre-reqs for an option to assign a planet as their base would be:
1. Civilian Mining Colony present (which also covers the minimum pop required for these).
2. Commercial Spaceport on the planet.
3. Financial Center on planet.
4. Maybe - Commercial Shipyard that has one slip equal to size of smallest Cargo or Colony design.
5. Maybe - PPV twice of that requested by the current population.
This would mean that any new ships for that Line are produced at their Home Port. Any trade runs will have a higher chance of starting or ending at their Home Port.
Post by: Beersatron on August 30, 2010, 12:58:01 AM
Quote from: "Vanderer"
Nope, at least one of them was the same class than one from the fleet i have encountered earlier, so its not possible. And one of them was very small, since he exploded after a single volley of 5 S4 missiles. Could be a bug tough, i don't know, but like i said earlier, i have seen this type of behavior in previous games.
Could well have been that you destroyed all their active sensor platforms and since they couldn't see your ships they didn't have anything to run away from.
If it was civilian then they would have ran away directly opposite you.
If it was FACs then chances are they either didn't know you were there since they will have myopic active sensors due to size restrictions or it could have been that they were waiting for more missiles to become available. [spoiler:3bujo8d3]Don't think NPRs will ram.[/spoiler:3bujo8d3]
Post by: Brian Neumann on August 30, 2010, 05:44:25 AM
Brian
Post by: Brian Neumann on August 30, 2010, 06:43:08 AM
Brian
Post by: martinuzz on September 03, 2010, 11:23:52 AM
Each micro-missile tech reduces the basic size (0.25 MSP) of missiles by 0.05 MSP.
These techs should be rather expensive, and require quite a bit of other missile research before becoming available.
I can see MIRV AMM coming up
Post by: Erik L on September 03, 2010, 01:48:22 PM
Quote from: "martinuzz"
New Research Line: Micro-missiles 1 - 4
Each micro-missile tech reduces the basic size (0.25 MSP) of missiles by 0.05 MSP.
These techs should be rather expensive, and require quite a bit of other missile research before becoming available.
I can see MIRV AMM coming up :twisted:
Post by: UnLimiTeD on September 03, 2010, 06:16:34 PM
Post by: Erik L on September 03, 2010, 07:21:57 PM
Quote from: "UnLimiTeD"
Shouldn't the bomblets have a minimum size of 1 aswell?
They do... But my mines are size 30.
Post by: martinuzz on September 04, 2010, 11:43:03 AM
Recycling efficiency tech. Improves the mineral returns of scrapping and salvaging things.
Researching this tech line 3 times opens up another tech line:
Reverse engineering. Improves the research point gain from disassembling stuff.
Post by: Vanigo on September 05, 2010, 02:55:24 PM
Post by: Caplin on September 06, 2010, 03:11:52 PM
For instance, allys might be able to call on one another for aid in wartime, with success dependent on the rating of your diplomacy team and other racial factors.
I realize this might be a bit complicated, coding wise. You'd need a way to track states of war and how aid was going, etc.
But I think it would add a lot of potential story making ability to an already great game.
I'm coming from a world of reading about, and not playing, games like Galactic Civilizations II with extremely detailed diplomatic models. I'd love something vaguely similar I could actually play.
Post by: martinuzz on September 09, 2010, 03:58:22 AM
I think it would be realistic, if ship components of older tech than currently posessed, add less failure rate when installed on a ship.
This would reflect the ship designer's, and the crew's familiarity with components which have been known and tested for a longer time.
For example, say you have researched ECM 6.
Before you researched ECM 6, your ECM 5 components added x% to the ship's failure rate.
I suggest reducing the failure rate by 20% per tech level researched, that is more advanced than the one installed, with a minimum of 20% of the original value.
So, installing ECM 5 in this situation would add 0.8x% to the ship's failure rate
If the standard failure rate of ECM 3 would be y, in this example, installing ECM 3 would add only 0.4y% to the failure rate.
ECM 2 and ECM 1 would both add 20% of their standard value to the ship's failure rate, as the minimum is 20%
For racial techs, I'm not sure how determining a component's failure rate works, but it would make sense to use the average reduction percentage to determine the component's final failure reduction.
Example: You have Ion engine technology researched, thermal reduction 35%, and fuel efficiency 70%
Now, you create an engine with Ion technology, thermal reduction 50% and fuel efficieny 70%.
These technologies have respective failure reduction rates of 0%, 20% and 0%. This averages to 20/3 = 6,67%.
However, like I said, I'm not sure how calculations work as they are now. If in the example above, thermal reduction does not change the component's failure rate, it's percentage modifier will not be included in determining the component's final failure reduction. In other words: only technologies in a component that affect it's failure rate in the first place, are used in determining the final failure rate reduction.
This would also make the construction of *huge* deathstar ships more feasible. Just use older techs for the components that aren't critical to the ship's doctrine, to help keep it's failure rates from rising sky-high.
Post by: Chairman on September 09, 2010, 10:33:01 AM
Post by: Hawkeye on September 09, 2010, 10:35:59 AM
Quote from: "Chairman"
Been playing with the idé of a Terran Empire game, but I would like to use all off the different terran languages name for ships and commanders... Would have been nice.
For commanders: Select "View your Race" CTRL+F2
There you can select up to four secondary commander name themes.
Post by: On_Target on September 12, 2010, 05:14:43 PM
This would allow a, for instance, 400 ton fighter to be given up to 100 additional tons of fuel storage in drop tanks, so that they could actually have some legs to them. Prior to combat, you could shed the fuel tanks to drop your size down to 400 tons again, giving you better speed and a smaller size against detection. With missile ranges being as long as they are even without multiple stage vehicles, this would be a nice boost. (Also it might mean my fighters could not need a carrier for home system defense--I like to base a nice swarm of them from a PDC but the range tends to be so small for each fighter that an enemy could missile my planet and facilities from outside of fighter engagement distance. And this is with 25k+ fuel on each.)
Of course, there'd be no way to collect dropped pods, and those pod-laden fighters take up more room in the hanger per unit, so there'd be some tradeoffs besides the initial tech. Maybe reloading them and carrying spares be treated like box missiles?
Post by: On_Target on September 12, 2010, 05:56:05 PM
During task force training, could there be an option for ships to draw automatically from a nearby colony/tanker's fuel reserves? Simulating them popping back for gas as needed during exercises, without interrupting the process, and not having to worry about them suddenly getting stranded a ways from home? (Option instead of standard because otherwise someone will leave fleet training on for years and run out of gas without realizing it.)
The additional options for conditional actions (e.g. when at 40%/50%/60% fuel) suggested in another thread might alleviate this just as well. It still would be nice to have a "Resume Task Force Training Upon Refueling/Resupply" option.
In fact, a "Followup" or "Upon Completion" command below "Condition" and "Orders" would be fantastic. Among other possible orders, "Return to Location Previous to Condition Being Met" would save me a lot of unfun micromanagement (giving me more time for the fun micromanagement!).
Post by: Beersatron on September 12, 2010, 07:04:37 PM
Oh, and the thing that made me realize just how short the legs are on a fighter: task force training outside of carriers. I had 50 fighters out of gas a ways from home (I'd told them to refuel at 20% or lower, but this seemed to have been ignored for some reason; that, or they decided just beforehand to head far from home), and refueling them with a main fleet (no dedicated tanker at that point) enough to get home was a major pain.
During task force training, could there be an option for ships to draw automatically from a nearby colony/tanker's fuel reserves? Simulating them popping back for gas as needed during exercises, without interrupting the process, and not having to worry about them suddenly getting stranded a ways from home? (Option instead of standard because otherwise someone will leave fleet training on for years and run out of gas without realizing it.)
The additional options for conditional actions (e.g. when at 40%/50%/60% fuel) suggested in another thread might alleviate this just as well. It still would be nice to have a "Resume Task Force Training Upon Refueling/Resupply" option.
In fact, a "Followup" or "Upon Completion" command below "Condition" and "Orders" would be fantastic. Among other possible orders, "Return to Location Previous to Condition Being Met" would save me a lot of unfun micromanagement (giving me more time for the fun micromanagement!).
I am fairly certain that fighters train while aboard their mothership - think of it as the flight crews using the simulators instead of wasting expensive fuel!
Post by: On_Target on September 12, 2010, 09:56:44 PM
I am fairly certain that fighters train while aboard their mothership - think of it as the flight crews using the simulators instead of wasting expensive fuel!
You missed the first part of my post: task force training OUTSIDE of carriers. Carriers are well and fine for a mobile fleet, but for system defense building a PDC and stocking it full of fighters is a fine move. Except that PDCs can't take part in task force training, so the fighters need to train outside of it in their own task force and return to their immobile mothership once they're trained.
I'd just train them in carriers and plop them into a PDC once the squadron was ready, but there's 2 issues.
1) Carriers that carry 50+ fighters are expensive to build and maintain, and if you are doing that already why aren't they on the front lines.
2) Giant loss of task force training bonus once you switch anything with the ships in the task group.
Post by: Erik L on September 12, 2010, 10:25:17 PM
You missed the first part of my post: task force training OUTSIDE of carriers. Carriers are well and fine for a mobile fleet, but for system defense building a PDC and stocking it full of fighters is a fine move. Except that PDCs can't take part in task force training, so the fighters need to train outside of it in their own task force and return to their immobile mothership once they're trained.Build a tender? Engines, hangars, fuel.
I'd just train them in carriers and plop them into a PDC once the squadron was ready, but there's 2 issues.
1) Carriers that carry 50+ fighters are expensive to build and maintain, and if you are doing that already why aren't they on the front lines.
2) Giant loss of task force training bonus once you switch anything with the ships in the task group.
Post by: martinuzz on September 13, 2010, 02:08:23 AM
Post by: On_Target on September 13, 2010, 03:48:57 AM
Build a tender? Engines, hangars, fuel.
If they're going to stay in their mothership (instead of burning fuel and racking up the maintenance clock), the mothership needs to be a part of the training. Switching from that ship to the PDC loses a major chunk of training.
(Also, your definition of a tender is my definition of an escort carrier. Small, dirt cheap, and meant to stay far from the battle--launch fighters at earliest opportunity and retreat to the jump point while they engage.)
Even though you cannot send PDCs to training, fighters stationed in PDC hangars will still train.Have you tried to do this? If you're going to train them, you need to form them into a new task group, because when they're attached to the PDC the option to train is greyed out. If they're in a different group than the PDC, they can't be housed inside. If you try to recover fighters from a different task group, the mothership absorbs the fighter's task group into its own.
If you have a way to do it I'd love to hear what it is. As it stands, I don't see a way to train PDC fighters without running into the previously mentioned problems.
Post by: Vanigo on September 13, 2010, 07:16:35 AM
Even though you cannot send PDCs to training, fighters stationed in PDC hangars will still train.No, they don't. They should, but they don't.
Post by: martinuzz on September 13, 2010, 06:22:10 PM
My memory must fail me, cause I could have sworn I had seen fighters at 100% trained, in one of my PDCs, while I did not have any carrier ships at all.
Post by: sloanjh on September 13, 2010, 08:29:28 PM
You missed the first part of my post: task force training OUTSIDE of carriers. Carriers are well and fine for a mobile fleet, but for system defense building a PDC and stocking it full of fighters is a fine move. Except that PDCs can't take part in task force training, so the fighters need to train outside of it in their own task force and return to their immobile mothership once they're trained.Ok, obvious question time: has anyone actually checked this? PDC do accrue TF training points while sitting there doing nothing (i.e. without a training mission IIRC) - have you confirmed that fighters in PDC don't?
John
Post by: Vanigo on September 13, 2010, 09:13:09 PM
Ok, obvious question time: has anyone actually checked this? PDC do accrue TF training points while sitting there doing nothing (i.e. without a training mission IIRC) - have you confirmed that fighters in PDC don't?Yes. I have.
John
Post by: On_Target on September 13, 2010, 10:20:40 PM
Ok, obvious question time: has anyone actually checked this? PDC do accrue TF training points while sitting there doing nothing (i.e. without a training mission IIRC) - have you confirmed that fighters in PDC don't?
John
Thanks for suggesting that I'm too ignorant to ensure the accuracy of my statements before speaking. I confirmed it before I made the initial post about the issue.
Post by: Beersatron on September 13, 2010, 11:25:10 PM
Thanks for suggesting that I'm too ignorant to ensure the accuracy of my statements before speaking. I confirmed it before I made the initial post about the issue.
He is just being thorough, I too thought that fighters in PDCs accrued training whilst docked in the same way they do in a carrier - it's nice to wrong sometimes! :)
If you haven't already, it might be worth reporting it as a bug - Steve did just redo some of that code recently so maybe he missed something.
Post by: ndkid on September 14, 2010, 09:59:43 AM
Post by: ndkid on September 14, 2010, 10:11:28 AM
Post by: Vanigo on September 14, 2010, 01:28:29 PM
Provide an Automated Turns checkbox on the economics screen, so that I can fire off an automated 5-day or 30-day run that is going to churn with small increments for an extended period of time without changing the coloration of all the other windows on my computer the way using the System Map does.I'd have filed this under bugs, myself. (I see sort of the same issue, but only menu bars and right-click menus change on my system.)
Post by: sloanjh on September 14, 2010, 02:23:46 PM
He is just being thorough,
What Beer said - "Obvious question" meant "I assume people have, but am just double-checking".
John
PS - It looks like the quote button only gives the most recent reply - any way to get deeper nesting?
Post by: Erik L on September 14, 2010, 03:03:16 PM
I'd have filed this under bugs, myself. (I see sort of the same issue, but only menu bars and right-click menus change on my system.)
This one probably won't ever get fixed. In theory, if you use the exit command off the menu, rather than the X, it should revert the colors.
Post by: praguepride on September 14, 2010, 03:40:19 PM
Basically, right now my understanding of the diplomacy model is that any time your ships are present in a system where an alien has a presence, it drags on their relationship.
I understand the reasoning behind that, it's not polite to send a fleet of battleships and park them next to the alien's homeworld.
But then again, if an alien colonizes a system in MY home system, they shouldn't turn around and complain that my ships are going in and out of there.
This is especially noticable if you have a "multiple Empire from the same system" game going on. Like the old Exodus game where you have 5 Empires. I noticed this especially once empires started building ships, suddenly all relationships started to tank dramatically and soon my game was stopped as every few minutes one ship ran into another and due to the the difficulty of actually getting diplomatic teams going to preserve this relationship.
I propose the following ideas. Maybe these are in place (/shrug) but if not, perhaps they should be.
1) x2 "sensitivity" in homeworld systems. A bit of a tangent but any relationship penalties should be doubled if it's next to the alien's homeworld. Bonus points if it's an alogrithm based on proximity to your homeworld and there's. For example, if it's a system smack dab in the middle it's not nearly as big a drag as going to their homeworld or a system clear on the opposite side of the galaxy (i.e. one you have no business dealing with).
2) You cause NO drag when it's in YOUR home system. SO if you're on earth and they colonize mars, they can't get upset that you're in your home planet.
3) You cause no (or highly reduced) drag when you were there first. If you already have presence in the system when they come about, they don't really have a good reason to complain, do they.
4) All this is the same on the flip side. So they cause no drag to your relationship if it's in their homeworld and/or they were there first.
On a semi-unrelated note:
Allow teams to be made with people with 0 skill in that area. Right now it is very hard to get espionage or diplmat teams as you have to wait and hope for randomly generated diplomacy people. Why can't you assign a few "trainees"?
I think the penalty is inherent as you have an inferior team as they'd contribute nothing for the team score, but especially for diplomacy it can be years before you can get even a single diplomatic team together, meanwhile you have veritable armies of currently useless, "NO SKILL" commanders. You can assign a commander with no skill to other positions (staff positions, army and naval ships) but you can't assign no skill members to teams? They can't apprentice with experienced members and learn over time?
Post by: Caplin on September 15, 2010, 01:36:02 AM
The issue is quite a complex one, and not new either. Back when Steve first introduced the new diplomacy rules, somebody brought it up. Back then, a couple alternatives were suggested. One being that NPRs simply won't colonize in a system in which you have a colony. I personally feel this too restrictive for no reason. Rather, I favor another mentioned approach, in which you can claim a particular system, with an NPR having a chance based on racial characteristics to ignore the claim and show up anyway.
I agree with Steve's reasoning that often wars have been fought over disputed territory, and would love to see this implemented.
Post by: ndkid on September 15, 2010, 01:38:51 PM
This one probably won't ever get fixed. In theory, if you use the exit command off the menu, rather than the X, it should revert the colors.
Well, to make sure we're clear, my suggestion isn't that the system and galaxy maps should change their (rather bad, I grant) menu bar behavior. I'm simply asking for the ability to circumvent it by allowing automating turns to be fired off outside of the System Map.
(I'd be happiest if there were a menu item "Automate Turns" that got a check beside it when turned on, and a menu item for minimum increment, and then do away with the custom interface on the System Map, and just have all the various time increment buttons check to see whether automated turns is on or not. This also has the beauty of allowing the Automated Turns toggle to have a hotkey, which would make my Aurora-using life far, far easier, as I wouldn't have to open the system map, which I almost never use, to skip past two NPRs duking it out offscreen.)
Post by: ndkid on September 15, 2010, 01:44:07 PM
Post by: sloanjh on September 15, 2010, 04:13:42 PM
Hi,
The issue is quite a complex one, and not new either. Back when Steve first introduced the new diplomacy rules, somebody brought it up. Back then, a couple alternatives were suggested. One being that NPRs simply won't colonize in a system in which you have a colony. I personally feel this too restrictive for no reason. Rather, I favor another mentioned approach, in which you can claim a particular system, with an NPR having a chance based on racial characteristics to ignore the claim and show up anyway.
I agree with Steve's reasoning that often wars have been fought over disputed territory, and would love to see this implemented.
Second on the "claiming system" idea (errr I think it was from me in the first place, so I'm not sure if this is double-counting :-) )
Interestingly enough, this is exactly the scenario in the fiction for Steve's latest campaign - the pushy neighbors are surveying Sol and (in the fiction) the Terrans are saying "stop that - this is our system" but the neighbors are acting as if they failed the racial characteristics roll.
Two tweaks to the suggestion:
1) The other race should only notice the claim if you have comm.
2) Maybe the result of a "respect the claim" roll should be some sort of negative score on the relations. That way, if the alien runs into at a lot of your systems, the alien will begin to feel "hemmed in" and be more likely to go to war.
Post by: Vanigo on September 15, 2010, 06:50:41 PM
Post by: On_Target on September 16, 2010, 05:13:07 AM
I would love the ability with leaders, and especially with Civilian Administrators and Scientists, to automatically retire graduates who don't meet some set criteria. At the simplest level would be a "minimum promotion score"; at the most complex would be a full on rules engine that could handle "Has (Energy Weapons AND science skill >= 10) OR science skill >= 20 OR promotion score > 200".
I agree. Also, being able to pay money to make scholarships for certain branches of science, administration, or military would be FANTASTIC (resulting in a higher chance to get graduates with bonuses in those areas compared to others). I had 25 years without a single researcher who was Power and Propulsion oriented, but at least a dozen in Bio/Genetics (which I wasn't interested in at all; I resented it being present and stealing all my scientists). I had at least 15 academies, too.
Either government-funded scholarships would be an option, or even a public campaign to promote certain types of learning among the populace. Of course, it would take at least a few years before results would really start to show.
Post by: Laurence on September 16, 2010, 09:58:06 AM
Could we get a button or box to cap population of a colony? Would be nice for roleplay purposes to have a small enclave on another empire's world, but it's limited to a certain size.
An option merge colonies on the same body if they match species and political status.
An option to give a colony a specific name, rather than tying it to the system body name. When playing an Earth scenario its easy to get confused as to which is which, especially if one "race" has conquered others. They all get the same name right now.
A way to flag ground units to attack, rather than the whole bag going into attacking another colony.
Post by: Elouda on September 17, 2010, 04:25:10 PM
Post by: Vanigo on September 19, 2010, 07:21:04 PM
Post by: wilddog5 on September 21, 2010, 09:33:55 AM
Thus the simple mode this would be selected with a tickbox on the new game creation window and rather than using the current method when a package is launched it is recored with a arrival date and sits in the Dbase until that date while it is added to the receiving planets stockpile.
(catches breath)
A new window (sub window) could be added to the mining tab of the planet screen with (for the currently selected planet) the sender/destination planet (this could be separated with a drop down list (so sending planets would list destination and receiving planets would list the sender) the contents (separate column for each material) and the arrival date as most of this probably listed in the Dbase for each packet anyway this should need only small changes as well as the new window providing usefull information for those that chose to use the current system.
(remembers to breath in)
thank you for listening and have a nice day :)
Post by: Vanigo on September 21, 2010, 10:31:46 AM
I have noted that each mass driver package is counted with regards to movement as a ship, the result being lots of packets = massive slowdown.I wonder if that's why Sol is taking four seconds to draw... probably not; I've got display of mass packets turned off.
I'd like to be able to turn off displaying civilian ships - the inner system of Sol tends to get incredibly cluttered with civilian ship nametags.
Post by: On_Target on September 22, 2010, 07:49:24 AM
I spent at least 10 minutes looking, but if someone wants to point me in the right direction to an existing solution I'd be more than happy.
Since I don't think it exists: Can we get a way to scrap fighters in orbit, perhaps similar to the way we can scrap missiles stored planetside?
Post by: Vanigo on September 23, 2010, 09:32:13 PM
Post by: wilddog5 on September 24, 2010, 03:00:30 AM
my suggestion is to have the civilian traders fix this eg every 1000 trades of trade goods or 5000 liner landings (day trips to the wilderness, sightseeing etc (not spending a fortune in the quaint little villages)) = 1% increase.
I also believe that colonies should start with only 10% economy as the people that are more likely to colonise a new world are the less wealthy members of society (Rich people would not want to take up farming, mining etc) this colony ships should decrease the economy if greater than 10% eg 100000 people = -1% economy to represent the addition of less wealthy people arriving and the cost of sorting them into the colony.
You could even have planets with a large amount of trade increase to over 100% economy to represent the huge number of goods flowing through them and the higher general wealth of the population (higher percentage of rich people than average) as a result
feel free to improve
thank you
Post by: On_Target on September 24, 2010, 03:28:46 AM
1. Ground units in drop pods should be able to be reloaded into transport bays. I loaded my troops into drop pods within their own fleet (shuttle-carried drop pods in hangars), but I did it too soon (it happened much faster than expected since I put cargo handling on the troop/shuttle carrier) and morale started to drop, but I couldn't get them out of their pods without launching them at an enemy. Since I was dressing ranks prior to jumping, this wasn't an option. I can't imagine this would be a hard fix.
2. It would be REALLY nice if battalions and companies could be (automatically, when applicable) broken or regrouped into smaller/larger components. After a forum comment about 5 companies = 1 battalion, and seeing the troop transport bay automatically change from 4 companies to 1 battalion when the next one was added, I thought I could load a battalion of marines into the transport, and that they would automatically be broken into companies when it came time to load them into their company-sized drop pods. Quite the disappointment to find out this was not the case. Doing this would reduce a lot of clutter in GU organization, and allow easier combat.
3. Carriers are counting docked fighters when making squadron jumps. This can't be right.
4. Engine size being rounded to whole numbers means that hyper drive engine advancement is pointless when less than 1.4 for fighters (rounded down to 1). Even for other engines, the rounding makes a few advancements utterly without benefit.
Post by: UnLimiTeD on September 24, 2010, 04:46:47 PM
Economy Blabla
I love those ideas! Would make it so much more satisfying.
Well, from a human point of view.
Post by: Vanigo on September 24, 2010, 06:33:58 PM
I love those ideas! Would make it so much more satisfying.There is some sense to it, but you've got the figures for colonies way too low. It would take a new colony decades, at least, to get the thousands and thousands of cargo ships trading goods. Especially since a colony has to get pretty big before any meaningful amount of trade takes place, and all the colony ships coming in would reduce the economy to about -150% before things got going. And you'd keep getting colony ships coming even after the colony was fairly established, hurting the economy far faster than it could recover. So, millennia before you started seeing any income, probably. If this is going to work at all, it needs some big changes.
Well, from a human point of view.
Drop the "new colonists hurt the economy" thing entirely. Say that richer colonies attract richer immigrants, or whatever.
Increase the effect of trading at least tenfold.
Add other causes of economic growth. Financial complexes should do the job, of course, and low unemployment should help. It should probably just happen naturally over time, as well, although this should be pretty slow. On the flipside, it would be quite reasonable if things like bombardment and unrest knocked things back a few points.
Most of all, it needs to be nonlinear. It should be pretty fast and easy to get from 10% to 50%, harder to get to 75%, and quite tricky to get over 100%. It should probably constantly degrade to 100% if it's higher.
Post by: wilddog5 on September 25, 2010, 02:29:57 AM
Also I forgot to add that I consider only planets with less than 25M people to be a colony more is an established world and the colony ships should stop causing a drop as the persentage of arrivals to local pop is not sufficient to affect the total economy that much.
Post by: Vanigo on September 25, 2010, 12:16:52 PM
I was thinking about earth to mars for the transport numbers so yes the numbers where a bit high but the colony economy would only drop if it was greater than 10% if it was 10% or somehow less than that the colony ships would not affect it.Even so, short of shooting down every civilian colony ship that gets launched, there's no way you'd ever ever ever be able to get a colony over 10% economy. And once you got it to that point, well, a 25M planet only generates a few hundred points of supply and demand a year, total, so you'd be looking at about 60 years to get up to full, at best. Even if it is Mars.
Also I forgot to add that I consider only planets with less than 25M people to be a colony more is an established world and the colony ships should stop causing a drop as the persentage of arrivals to local pop is not sufficient to affect the total economy that much.
Post by: James Patten on September 29, 2010, 06:14:07 AM
Now you jump into a new system and immediately see all the wrecks that are there. This gives the player good advanced warning that something's up in that system.
Can you partially roll the clock back? So that undetected wrecks are invisible, but once detected by sensor they stay visible.
Post by: sloanjh on September 29, 2010, 07:40:59 AM
Regarding wrecks - I know it used to be that wrecks could only be detectable by an active sensor, and if you went out of range of the sensor you lost the wreck. Now you see wrecks all the time and don't need a sensor.Seconded.
Now you jump into a new system and immediately see all the wrecks that are there. This gives the player good advanced warning that something's up in that system.
Can you partially roll the clock back? So that undetected wrecks are invisible, but once detected by sensor they stay visible.
Post by: UnLimiTeD on September 29, 2010, 09:36:52 AM
Post by: Laurence on September 29, 2010, 02:02:47 PM
1. How about when an item is researched (such as a specific engine, search sensor, missile, or fire control), one of them is added to the ship components or missile stockpile on the population that the research is finished at.
2. Awarding population a very small construction ability (so that they can build something, like a factory). That way they could do something if they lost or did not have any installations.
3. Add Conventional Industry to the list of Installations so low tech populations can expand their industry.
Post by: Vanigo on September 29, 2010, 08:15:31 PM
Post by: On_Target on September 29, 2010, 10:11:19 PM
2. Awarding population a very small construction ability (so that they can build something, like a factory). That way they could do something if they lost or did not have any installations.
Oh, this would be nice, and would make colonizing places quite a bit easier for me. Maybe even make it so the colonists can only build certain installations without advanced factories? So that, even if just in workshops, and by use of the unemployed workforce rather than any machinery, factories, infrastructure, and regular mines can be built.
It would be really sweet to not have to decrease my main planet's capabilities in order to set up a viable colony. The process already takes a good amount of time, effort, and investment (mines, factories, and often infrastructure which all could be used to continue expanding the home planet's impressive construction abilities. Plus they demand defenses.), with little enough gain (we get... faster population growth, more trade/taxes, and forward bases. Anything else?). This would make colonizing a bit more worthwhile, and show colonists who aren't completely at the mercy of their home planet to make any sort of real progress.
Post by: Caplin on September 30, 2010, 12:22:59 AM
Post by: UnLimiTeD on September 30, 2010, 04:55:26 AM
You need Industry to produce industry, so how did you get it in the first place?
Populations without anything should be able to build conventional Industry.
Post by: Caplin on September 30, 2010, 05:26:52 AM
Post by: mavikfelna on September 30, 2010, 10:19:39 PM
--Mav
Post by: backstab on October 01, 2010, 02:24:22 AM
The thought is probably more that currently, we have a paradox.
You need Industry to produce industry, so how did you get it in the first place?
Populations without anything should be able to build conventional Industry.
Try using Cargo Ships to transport Construction Factories to the colony site. I normally set up the site with mines and Construction Factories first before I move in Colonists. Then you will not need to be able to produce anything out of thin air.
Post by: On_Target on October 01, 2010, 03:27:12 AM
I would suggest that for every 20 million unemployed they provide 1 conventional industry.
--Mav
This is an elegant solution. I concur; however, 20 million seems a little high, especially considering the 70% service and agricultural employment. Did you decide on the number arbitrarily, or was there a reason behind it? I think that 10 million would be just as viable a number; given that every construction factory is giving 10x the efficiency of building under this rule, it's hardly too much.
If this was implemented, having less than 10 million give at least a fractional bonus would be much desired. I could finally task the commercial-settled colonies to begin development on their own dime. (Bad enough that they start threatening me with rebellion if I don't give them local military presence, the ingrates!)
Post by: Vanigo on October 01, 2010, 06:25:05 AM
Try using Cargo Ships to transport Construction Factories to the colony site. I normally set up the site with mines and Construction Factories first before I move in Colonists. Then you will not need to be able to produce anything out of thin air.I think he's talking about the hypothetical past of the planet - if a species with no industry can never, ever, ever build any industry, how did anyone, anywhere ever get started?
Post by: mavikfelna on October 01, 2010, 12:49:01 PM
Quote
This is an elegant solution. I concur; however, 20 million seems a little high, especially considering the 70% service and agricultural employment. Did you decide on the number arbitrarily, or was there a reason behind it? I think that 10 million would be just as viable a number; given that every construction factory is giving 10x the efficiency of building under this rule, it's hardly too much.
If this was implemented, having less than 10 million give at least a fractional bonus would be much desired. I could finally task the commercial-settled colonies to begin development on their own dime. (Bad enough that they start threatening me with rebellion if I don't give them local military presence, the ingrates!)
It was a totally arbitrary number based solely the 25m cut-off point where colonies are considered built up enough to supply colonists. Thinking more about it with your additions I'd almost say go as low as 5m, Which would still be nearly 15m people on the planet.
Post by: UnLimiTeD on October 01, 2010, 01:41:07 PM
Post by: James Patten on October 01, 2010, 01:46:39 PM
I've never encountered a pre-TN race, but would assume that they start with Conventional Industry, and once a TN race shows up it gives them the idea that something else is out there.
Post by: Vanigo on October 01, 2010, 08:45:12 PM
Post by: UnLimiTeD on October 02, 2010, 06:20:02 AM
@James Doesn't belong here, but I've necountered low tech races already, and they don't build anything, ever.
After 20 years their signature barely grew, they didn't seem to produce something at all.
Post by: mavikfelna on October 02, 2010, 11:58:27 AM
--Mav
Post by: Beersatron on October 02, 2010, 02:38:42 PM
So, you essentially want increment sizes for cloak.
@James Doesn't belong here, but I've necountered low tech races already, and they don't build anything, ever.
After 20 years their signature barely grew, they didn't seem to produce something at all.
Steve has mentioned before that the AI can not do a pre-TN start. I think the low-tech Civs are there to spice things up, give you a relative easy experience in Ground Warfare and the 1st step in adding logic to enable a true NPR conventional start.
Post by: ExChairman on October 03, 2010, 01:56:10 AM
Ex. Turn all ships to 248 degrees.
Post by: IanD on October 04, 2010, 09:15:33 AM
The thought is probably more that currently, we have a paradox.
You need Industry to produce industry, so how did you get it in the first place?
Populations without anything should be able to build conventional Industry.
Actually what I want more is a use for the habitable planet with no, few or insufficient TN minerals in system or adjacent systems or the easily terraformable planet without significant mineral deposits in a system that has another easily terraformable planet with mineral deposits, Alpha Centauri can be a prime example.
This is a planet where there is no point in putting a manufacturing/ship building centre there because there are no TN mineral reserves or there is a better candidate in system. But they should have some use! I don't think you can even train troops there for the same reason. I just feel they should DO something! The only thing I could come up with is enhanced wealth generation from fissionable or other valuable non-TN mineral or gem deposits or as a source of biologicals or a vacation resort. At the moment there seems nothing apart from the population’s intrinsic wealth generation that is pretty small for the first 50 million or so colonists. Is there something conventional industry can make which is of benefit to a TN civilisation?
If the TN deposits are two or three jumps away its usually cheaper to terraform a planet if there’s a suitable candidate in system rather than ship it a few thousand billion kilometres. Geological survey teams are also of little help as even the super survey teams luck out sometime.
Regards
Post by: Laurence on October 04, 2010, 09:50:12 AM
I think he's talking about the hypothetical past of the planet - if a species with no industry can never, ever, ever build any industry, how did anyone, anywhere ever get started?
That is is sort of why I made the suggestion. How do you get the first conventional industry? Even a very tiny production ability would be enough to "explain" the start. It could even be taken away once industries of any sort exist.
The idea was triggered by a low-tech war on Earth I was playing. Some of the conventional industries for one nation got destroyed in the fighting and I realized what a disaster it would be if they lost them all.
Research labs also do not appear on the list of things a low tech population can build, so how do they get their first (or what do they do if they lose their only one)?
I know the focus of the game is the high-tech space travel and such, but I enjoy starting things "from scratch".
Post by: UnLimiTeD on October 04, 2010, 10:37:28 AM
I don't see a problem with that, actually.
As for Ian:
Thats the entire point. 10 Conventional Industry equal a Mine, a fuel refinery, and a Construction factory. They are not able to produce anything without TN minerals, and thats not going to change.
Aside from wealth, you can use such planets as fleet bases and for research labs.
Though wealth is a good reason in itself on most occasions.
Post by: Kurt on October 04, 2010, 07:34:30 PM
A minor request. I'd like to have the ability to rename populations. As things currently stand, races are named, as are planets, but as far as I can tell, I can't name populations.
What I am trying to do is to set up multiple colonies on the same planet for the same Empire. The Zogs currently have four races in their empire, including themselves, and in several cases they will find it useful to emplace populations from two or more races on the same planet. Unfortunately, on the System Display the colonies are all identified as "Zog", because the Zogs control them. On the Population and Production (P&P) screen the populations are identified by the name of the planet and star, but not by the name of the population.
The P&P screen is fine, because you can look at the details and figure out what you are looking at, but on the system display, and when you are plotting moves to and from a planet with multiple populations of the same race, it gets difficult to discriminate as to which population you are looking at.
Kurt
Post by: Kurt on October 04, 2010, 09:07:26 PM
With regards to automated turns, I would really appreciate it if you would make a small change. Currently it appears to that the automated turn advance is only interrupted if the active race has an event happen to them. I'd like it if the automated turn advance interrupted if any human-controlled race (not just the active race) had an event.
Kurt
Post by: Steve Walmsley on October 04, 2010, 10:03:49 PM
Steve -
With regards to automated turns, I would really appreciate it if you would make a small change. Currently it appears to that the automated turn advance is only interrupted if the active race has an event happen to them. I'd like it if the automated turn advance interrupted if any human-controlled race (not just the active race) had an event.
Kurt
The current version interrupts for any player race event
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on October 04, 2010, 10:06:12 PM
Steve -
A minor request. I'd like to have the ability to rename populations. As things currently stand, races are named, as are planets, but as far as I can tell, I can't name populations.
What I am trying to do is to set up multiple colonies on the same planet for the same Empire. The Zogs currently have four races in their empire, including themselves, and in several cases they will find it useful to emplace populations from two or more races on the same planet. Unfortunately, on the System Display the colonies are all identified as "Zog", because the Zogs control them. On the Population and Production (P&P) screen the populations are identified by the name of the planet and star, but not by the name of the population.
The P&P screen is fine, because you can look at the details and figure out what you are looking at, but on the system display, and when you are plotting moves to and from a planet with multiple populations of the same race, it gets difficult to discriminate as to which population you are looking at.
Kurt
I can't remember which version you are on at the moment :) but the current version shows populations with the species after the planet name on both the P&P window and the fleet window.
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on October 04, 2010, 10:12:28 PM
No sure if its been mentioned before, but I would like to give my warships an order to go to a specific heading.The game doesn't support this at the moment because movement is controlled on a point to point basis, rather than using speed and direction. In other words, your fleet doesn't move because the game performs trigonometry based on velocity and course. Instead, it performs a simple pythogoras function using your current coordinates and your destination coordinates and dividing total distance by distance covered in the current increment. This is far faster and easier for me and the PC :). However, you can create waypoints on the map if you want a fleet to go somewhere that doesn't have a convenient planet or survey location. If you wanted to use a waypoint for bearing 248, hold shift down and drag the mouse on the system map and it will draw a line showing bearing and direction so you can see where to place the waypoint.
Ex. Turn all ships to 248 degrees.
Steve
Post by: IanD on October 05, 2010, 09:00:44 AM
As for Ian:
Thats the entire point. 10 Conventional Industry equal a Mine, a fuel refinery, and a Construction factory. They are not able to produce anything without TN minerals, and thats not going to change.
Aside from wealth, you can use such planets as fleet bases and for research labs.
Though wealth is a good reason in itself on most occasions.
Except that fleet bases need TN minerals for maintenance and you will have to transport every Research complex there from somewhere else, seems little point, leaving wealth. Of course if its an important strategic position, then its worth shgipping in the minerals to maintain your forward elements.
Regards
Post by: IanD on October 05, 2010, 09:05:26 AM
I can't remember which version you are on at the moment :) but the current version shows populations with the species after the planet name on both the P&P window and the fleet window.
Steve
In 5.14 I have some six colonies on Earth, all of course huiman. I have yet to find a way to name them North American Sector etc.
To digress, how far away is 5.30, is it worth waiting for as I have finished unifying Earth and could convert to the latest version before I leave Sol with a litttle work?
Post by: backstab on October 05, 2010, 04:34:20 PM
In 5.14 I have some six colonies on Earth, all of course huiman. I have yet to find a way to name them North American Sector etc.
To digress, how far away is 5.30, is it worth waiting for as I have finished unifying Earth and could convert to the latest version before I leave Sol with a litttle work?
I'll second that one ... It will be very useful for multiple colonies on the same planet.
Post by: jRides on October 06, 2010, 04:11:49 AM
For the UI can I request that the research list can be sorted by its various column headers(the one at the top of scientist/research labs/completion dates etc). Like you can in the view tech window.
Also when sorting ships in the designs, single ship view and taskforces windows, it would be handy to be able to remove types from the lists as opposed to just sort the order the types/ships are shown in (make them a bit less wieldy).
On this sorting by type etc - would it be possible to add another player designation into ships, just a new field we can sort ships by (Battlefleet/survey/recon/support/carrier fleet/fighter for example), these lists get very long and really only creative naming is keeping me sane, its less of an issue now im getting to grips with the OOB on the task forces window.
Post by: Nibelung44 on October 06, 2010, 04:26:52 AM
Post by: Vanigo on October 08, 2010, 06:59:02 PM
Post by: jRides on October 14, 2010, 05:20:57 AM
Giving ship orders via the Task Group Orders tab, it would be handy if you could select an order and delete that selected order (right now you have to delete the entire list from the last order you gave, and so if you screwed up the first order - your deleting everything). Also it would be nice if we could copy a set of orders, also if we could just change a single selected order from a list of orders.
Post by: sloanjh on October 14, 2010, 08:50:56 AM
Some UI stuff:This is intentionally left out. The problem is that a lot of orders depend on the star system in which you are, so deleting orders from the middle of the list can lead to corrupt lists. That being said, it would still be nice to do for "safe" orders, i.e. those for which the preceding order is in the same system (I think).
Giving ship orders via the Task Group Orders tab, it would be handy if you could select an order and delete that selected order (right now you have to delete the entire list from the last order you gave, and so if you screwed up the first order - your deleting everything). Also it would be nice if we could copy a set of orders, also if we could just change a single selected order from a list of orders.
John
Post by: Vanigo on October 14, 2010, 11:23:47 AM
This is intentionally left out. The problem is that a lot of orders depend on the star system in which you are, so deleting orders from the middle of the list can lead to corrupt lists. That being said, it would still be nice to do for "safe" orders, i.e. those for which the preceding order is in the same system (I think).I think anything except jump gate transits should be safe, actually.
John
Post by: Brian Neumann on October 14, 2010, 11:40:24 AM
I think anything except jump gate transits should be safe, actually.Actually this is a problem when you have a list of orders. If for instance there is an order to pick up troops at one planet and unload on another planet. If you delete the load then the unload is also now out of sequence and when you get to there in the order list it can't be completed. This will throw an error message and delete the rest of the qued orders.
Brian
Post by: UnLimiTeD on October 14, 2010, 12:02:50 PM
If the ship moves to a planet to unload, and finds theres nothing to unload, it should just proceed, give the error message, and not delete everything.
Also, if Ships are able to "refuel within 4 Jumps" they should also be able to find a planet if the jump command is deleted, if they have jump capability or Gates.
Post by: Vanigo on October 14, 2010, 07:06:20 PM
Post by: Hawkeye on October 14, 2010, 10:57:35 PM
The combat options pane really needs a way to turn autofire and synchronized fire on and off for every ship or every ship of a given class in a fleet. Turning synchronized fire on for a group of fifty fighters sucks.
I just noticed that there is the option to turn on/off sync fire for a taskgroup on the taskgroup window, History/officers/Misc panel, lower right.
Still, being able to turn it on/off based on ship-class would be nice
Post by: UncleBob on October 16, 2010, 11:48:03 AM
1. Installed installations. It is a bit irritating how everything in the Aurora universe seems to be portable, even a factory that was in use for the last few decades. It might be a nice Idea that would add even more need for planning to put installations into a "storage" after being constructed, where they don't have any benefits. From there, they could either be transported away or installed on the planet. Once installed on whatever planet, they bring their benefits, but cannot be removed again.
2. Power. We're running into a real life energy crisis currently, yet so far no 4x game has wasted any thoughts on power. Make power a resource and you will have immediate benefits in terms of complexity all over the board: More installations that must be built, one more factor to balance, and more stuff to research. Might even be coupled with special resources for advanced powerplants.
Post by: Steve Walmsley on October 17, 2010, 01:18:24 AM
The combat options pane really needs a way to turn autofire and synchronized fire on and off for every ship or every ship of a given class in a fleet. Turning synchronized fire on for a group of fifty fighters sucks.You can turn Sync Fire on/off on the Task Groups window for the whole fleet. It is on the History / Officers / Misc tab.
Steve
Post by: Vanigo on October 17, 2010, 12:18:54 PM
You can turn Sync Fire on/off on the Task Groups window for the whole fleet. It is on the History / Officers / Misc tab.Yeah, someone mentioned that. That's a really unintuitive place for it, though; there should really be a button or something on the combat options pane.
Steve
Post by: UnLimiTeD on October 17, 2010, 02:38:40 PM
Like, only captains.
I always find it annoying to reassign Ground officers to the fitting battalions/brigades after auto-assigning my Navy Officiers.
Which are generally only selected after crew training.
Post by: ndkid on October 22, 2010, 09:53:18 AM
Post by: ExChairman on October 22, 2010, 01:59:14 PM
Ex.
Jump to X system.
Launch all fighters
Jump back to Y system
Post by: James Patten on October 25, 2010, 09:11:37 AM
Are installations taken out of inventory as soon as the build is ordered, at the end of the build process, or somewhere in between? And if I cancel a build with no build progress, do those installations get put back in inventory?
Post by: Beersatron on October 25, 2010, 09:37:30 AM
I have discovered the joys of pre-constructing ship installations, then being able to significantly reduce the amount of time a new build or refit takes on a ship. However, it's a mystery just how much time is saved until the build is ordered, and you check it on the Shipyard activity tab. It would be nice to be told that the job will really be done on X date, and even nicer to know what installations are being taken out of inventory to make it happen.
Are installations taken out of inventory as soon as the build is ordered, at the end of the build process, or somewhere in between? And if I cancel a build with no build progress, do those installations get put back in inventory?
To get a rough idea on the true done date I take a look at the class design and the % of cost each group of components takes. So say the engines are 30% of the cost and I have enough of them on planet then I can expect the build time to be 30% less. I'd definitely like an indicator of build time using components though!
They get taken out of inventory at the start of the build and they are not returned if you scrap the build. Pretty sure the components are deleted from the DB as soon as build is started so there is no way to track what was used.
Post by: James Patten on November 04, 2010, 06:38:52 AM
When I launch my fighters, it'd be nice to have a button that acts like the Detach button but detaches all the fighters into their squadron(s), as defined on the Fighter window. The new task group would have the name of the squadron as the group name. So I launch my 10 fighters as a squadron, the new squadron name is the "Ranger Squadron" (for example).
Troop suggestion:
I designed my carriers to have room for a Marine company, and included in my carriers is a drop ship. I initially loaded up my marines and thought that they were loading into the troop transport bay. Later I gave the command for the marines to be moved to the drop bay of the drop ship, which was inside the ship. This command would have taken almost a day to complete! and I couldn't do anything else while this was happening, so I canceled that command. Later I found out that my marines were already in the drop bay. So I don't know if the canceled command completed when I canceled it or if the troops were loaded into the drop bay initially. It would be nice if a) the load troop command was a little clearer as to where the troops were going, and b) we could transfer troops between transport bay and drop bay (and back) while the ship is on the move.
Post by: ardem on November 15, 2010, 12:54:52 AM
A selfish request but I am sure it would be a fairly simple one.
Post by: waresky on November 17, 2010, 05:53:07 AM
Carying the two more plausible suggestions over from the other thread, as suggested:
1. Installed installations. It is a bit irritating how everything in the Aurora universe seems to be portable, even a factory that was in use for the last few decades. It might be a nice Idea that would add even more need for planning to put installations into a "storage" after being constructed, where they don't have any benefits. From there, they could either be transported away or installed on the planet. Once installed on whatever planet, they bring their benefits, but cannot be removed again.
2. Power. We're running into a real life energy crisis currently, yet so far no 4x game has wasted any thoughts on power. Make power a resource and you will have immediate benefits in terms of complexity all over the board: More installations that must be built, one more factor to balance, and more stuff to research. Might even be coupled with special resources for advanced powerplants.
2nd.
Nice question for POWER.
But lot of work for Steve,balancing,NPR..etc..:D
Post by: UnLimiTeD on December 01, 2010, 10:37:39 AM
Space Bases. :D
Probably more a suggestion for II, but I figured it might be easy to implement.
Basically a new ship class, like PDCs, that can't use engines, and has to have stuff like Maintenance storages, but with a slower maintenance clock and less breakdowns, maybe -50% each.
It is a lot easier than thinking of a system for creating actual "planets" or the like, and would allow for prolonged deployment in strategic positions.
Obviously, you'd have to tow it back to a Planet every few years.
Post by: mberkers on December 05, 2010, 11:26:40 PM
Matt B
Post by: ardem on December 06, 2010, 12:00:17 AM
Commander Section: Longer then 5 year rotation period, mainly used for administrators
Ship Design: Ability in the Ship Design to choose the rotation period for that design
Task Group Orders: Ability when you set the tick boxes they stay set on the last setting.
Task Group Orders: Task group selection is a listbox not a dropdown box, perhaps even a radio button for Commercial/Military.
Event viewer: Ability to resize window, or make the font smaller to fit more on my screen (I have good eyesight)
Combat Window: When selecting shields On, it displays like active sensor do
Fighter Armour can be repaired
Crews can be transfered, if the crew is larger then the same experience is transfered (extra crew experience is lost), if smaller the experienced is based on percentage of total.
MOST IMPORTANT REQUEST: A tickbox to do automated turns regardless of events, until turned off, especially for those long missile battles.
Post by: Nistenf on December 08, 2010, 06:20:21 PM
Post by: UnLimiTeD on December 08, 2010, 06:52:12 PM
I hope the screen resolutions will be fixed by then.
Post by: mberkers on December 19, 2010, 07:32:46 AM
In addition to "Build jump gate" you could add "Disable Jump Gate", "Enable Jump Gate", and "Dismantle Jump Gate".
Maybe at a high enough tech level you could add "Close Jump Point" and "Open Jump Point".
I'm assuming here that a jump gate is a large structure that when triggered by a ship, stabilizes the jump point long enough for the ship to cruise through.
Given that, could a jump gate do the opposite? Completely destabilize the jump point so that ships coming through it have a pretty good chance of being destroyed. Possibly with a small chance of destroying the jump gate itself via energy blowback. . .
MattB
Post by: Himmelhand on December 30, 2010, 01:07:10 AM
Would it be possible to allow the SM to create new system bodies, or even to specify the gravity/orbital distance of bodies? This would be very helpful if someone wanted to create a system with a particular structure. I've been hoping to generate a system with a gas giant having a reasonable temperature with several moons capable of holding an atmosphere, and it's not quite giving me what i need. I figure being able to mess with individual system bodies could fix that. Being able to randomize the characteristics of a single body while maintaining certain stats as constant would be delightful as well.
Thank you for your time and effort thus far! Aurora 2 sounds exciting!
Post by: Sorby on January 09, 2011, 12:49:46 AM
The game already uses a simple, logical, row-column-armor type system. Being a science buff, I'm well-acquainted with the fact that choosing a strong material and adding more of it to strengthen the hull of a ship doesn't make it spaceworthy. Even today, we use concepts like Whipple Shields, to protect spacecraft from debris. I don't mean to dis your current system, Steve; I find it suiting. But it doesn't quite match with what's out there for spacecraft already.
Not long ago I came across an ablative armor concept called, "Metabolic Plating," whereas the hull can effectively heal itself after taking damage. The post described a ferrofluid-like ablative layer on the outside of the ship, which would absorb impacts and retain its shape. Though, the system seems a bit resistant towards Aurora's weapon systems, at first glance.
With some speculation, I've concluded that only one of these can be added per ship, and it would be a fairly heavy system. My guess of an equivalent would be something like an added 15-20 layers of armor. As for something that can do it in with ease, the plasma carronade comes to mind; It could simply vaporize large portions of the ferrofluid layer (For the purpose of the game, somewhere between 60-90 percent, depending on its damage, IMO). Another consideration would be the laser's penetrating power applying here as well, with a small percentage of its damage leached. Beyond that, I would imagine most weapon systems losing a lot of power trying to punch through (Perhaps explosions jettison portions of the layer?).
I guess specifics are up to you, but I'd at least like to see if this could be integrated.
The post:
hxxp: forum. astroempires. com/viewtopic. php?f=17&t=84453&start=11
-It's got a bunch of links to useful information. I don't think all the aspects of this particular model should be applied. Just the ones I mentioned.
-Also: What's with the link?
Post by: Erik L on January 09, 2011, 02:18:00 AM
The post:To prevent spam, links are "delinked" for users with less than 10 posts.
hxxp: forum. astroempires. com/viewtopic. php?f=17&t=84453&start=11
-It's got a bunch of links to useful information. I don't think all the aspects of this particular model should be applied. Just the ones I mentioned.
-Also: What's with the link?
Post by: DatAlien on January 19, 2011, 11:20:51 AM
An Option too unload all ship components would be handy too
Post by: DatAlien on January 19, 2011, 02:29:52 PM
1. The Ability to use an just assemble option for shipyards, with this option turned on the ship yard could assemble a wider array of ships but it cant build most of the components (as I can no reasons why my shipyards cant build an ship with three gauss canons instead of three railguns and an reactor)
2. The Ability to prefab ship modules that contain ship components in an system that allow the easily build in or replace, the ships that use them would be build without them or with and the replace would take a ship yard. This could be an researchable tech that enables this.
Post by: schroeam on January 19, 2011, 08:45:04 PM
Two things to shipbuilding:This was quite a discussion point way back before Steve even released the first beta for playtesting. He wanted some time frame to allow for development and preproduction of a class of ship, as well as the concept of prepositioning the materials necessary for the next class of ship to be constructed. With the proper planning you should be able to go from building one class to the next with little to no delay. Trying to get this changed will be quite an uphill battle. :)
1. The Ability to use an just assemble option for shipyards, with this option turned on the ship yard could assemble a wider array of ships but it cant build most of the components (as I can no reasons why my shipyards cant build an ship with three gauss canons instead of three railguns and an reactor)
2. The Ability to prefab ship modules that contain ship components in an system that allow the easily build in or replace, the ships that use them would be build without them or with and the replace would take a ship yard. This could be an researchable tech that enables this.You can do this already by having your planetary industry build ship components (Population and Production -> Industry -> dropdown menu to Ship Components) which will reduce the time it takes to build each ship. It will also reduce the refit time, so basically if you have prebuilt all the new components going into the Mod B version then the refit is nothing more than an assembly in the shipyard. Hope this helps.
Adam.
Post by: Erik L on January 19, 2011, 08:59:49 PM
This was quite a discussion point way back before Steve even released the first beta for playtesting. He wanted some time frame to allow for development and preproduction of a class of ship, as well as the concept of prepositioning the materials necessary for the next class of ship to be constructed. With the proper planning you should be able to go from building one class to the next with little to no delay. Trying to get this changed will be quite an uphill battle. :)Technically, this can be done if the ships are within a certain range cost-wise. I believe it is 20%.
You've got Farragut-C with gauss cannons, and Farragut-R with railguns. A shipyard designated for the Farragut-C can build Farragut-R's (if they are within 20% cost).
Post by: sloanjh on January 19, 2011, 09:06:37 PM
Technically, this can be done if the ships are within a certain range cost-wise. I believe it is 20%.
You've got Farragut-C with gauss cannons, and Farragut-R with railguns. A shipyard designated for the Farragut-C can build Farragut-R's (if they are within 20% cost).
To be more precise, the criterion is that the cost for refitting from (IIRC) the tooled design to the design-to-be-built needs to be lower than the percentage of the tooled design. If that is the case, then you can build the design-to-be-built without retooling. The ship class screen (I think on the last tab) will tell you which other designs can be built with a SY tooled to the design being examined. If you're going to play this modular design game, you will typically want to tool for the most expensive design, so that the refit cost to alternate designs is small.
So you can use the same SY to build classes which only differ by a few systems, but not which are totally different designs (even if the cost is the same). Erik implied this by talking about building two different versions of Farragut, rather than building e.g. both Farragut and Spruances.
John
Post by: Steve Walmsley on January 21, 2011, 09:23:30 AM
Technically, this can be done if the ships are within a certain range cost-wise. I believe it is 20%.
You've got Farragut-C with gauss cannons, and Farragut-R with railguns. A shipyard designated for the Farragut-C can build Farragut-R's (if they are within 20% cost).
The rule for building different ship classes is the shipyard can build them if the current specified class could be refitted to the other class for less than 20% of the specified class cost. So if you could buld a colony ship in a shipyard and you had a freighter design that had cargo holds instead of cryogenic modules but was otherwise identical, you can probably build the freighter in the same shipyard.
If you look on the DAC / Rank / Information tab of the F5 class window, there is a section that lists which alternative classes could be built in a shipyard that is setup to build the selected class.
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on January 21, 2011, 09:27:18 AM
I figure something major like scrollbars are not going to happen now that Steve is devoting his programming time on Aurora II.
I hope the screen resolutions will be fixed by then.
The limitations of VB6 are really the problem rather than any desire to make things difficult for users :). With C# and WPF, you can easily create windows that resize controls or maintain their relative positions when the window size changes so you will be able to use whatever resolution you like. In VB6 that is extremely hard to do. VB6 doesn't even support mousewheels.
Steve
Post by: UnLimiTeD on January 21, 2011, 11:53:10 AM
Well, you gotta work with what you got ;) Good to know the next episode of geek entertainment will be easier on the Netbook/TV-size-screen users.
Post by: Foolcow on January 28, 2011, 07:49:52 PM
It seems that officers do not have a defined location if they are not part of a team, and thus can materialize anywhere.
I didn't think this was serious enough to put in the bugs thread, so here it is.
Post by: DatAlien on January 28, 2011, 08:48:45 PM
Post by: Erik L on January 29, 2011, 01:02:52 PM
Right now, it is possible to instantly transport geology teams from one planet to another just by disbanding them and reassembling them on the destination.The premise is that your naval command structure is competent enough to send the officer out to his new posting without you needing to dedicate a ship to it. This was a change introduced long ago. Prior you had to ship your officers around manually.
It seems that officers do not have a defined location if they are not part of a team, and thus can materialize anywhere.
I didn't think this was serious enough to put in the bugs thread, so here it is.
Post by: DatAlien on January 29, 2011, 02:49:00 PM
Post by: welchbloke on February 02, 2011, 12:28:33 PM
How about creating a task force structure for ground forces? Just like task groups can be assigned to task forces and benefit from their assigned staff officers, divisions could be assigned to higher formations (Armies or Corps dependant upon your preference). I know Steve has shifted focus to Aurora II so this could be a suggestion for that as well.
Post by: bean on February 02, 2011, 04:33:43 PM
1. The lack of versatility in cargo holds annoys me. It's impossible to carry munitions, or small craft without the ship in question being classed as military. I'd like to see the ability to carry those things in cargo bays. I know it seems sort of unbalancing, but if it was set up right, it would simplify military logistics a lot.
2. Missile launchers in PD mode shouldn't engage targets that are out of range. This is almost a bug, but not really. It's simple enough to avoid if you know it's there.
3. I'd appreciate the ability to 'rough out' ships with designed components without having to research them. It's annoying that you have to guess the final ship size, then research the jump drive, then build the ship. And if the jump drive is the wrong size, you either have a more expensive and massive jump drive then you need, or you have to research another one.
Post by: Brian Neumann on February 02, 2011, 05:40:03 PM
I have a couple of suggestions. I'm fairly new to the game, so it might be that I've missed something, but I don't think so.There is a fairly simple way to check this. Copy the database then enter sm mode. You can instant reasearch anything you want there. So design what you think you will need, instant reasearch it and see if your ship design works out. I admit that there have been times when I have also done this in reverse where I reasearched and designed a ship and then realized it needed a little bit bigger jump engine, ect and just went in and retroactivly gave myself the new tech item, and deleted the old one. While this is a bit of a cheat it is not much of one as the reasearch costs will tend to be quite close together.
3. I'd appreciate the ability to 'rough out' ships with designed components without having to research them. It's annoying that you have to guess the final ship size, then research the jump drive, then build the ship. And if the jump drive is the wrong size, you either have a more expensive and massive jump drive then you need, or you have to research another one.
In any advent when you are done playing around with the design and know what you want then you copy the saved database back over the one you were working with and everything is reset to the save. Continue on from there. I know it is a bit cumbersome but it does work. Another option is to go in and give yourself all of the relevent tech in a new game. If you do this you can also create another race under your control and use it as a test for your new tech
Brian
Post by: bean on February 03, 2011, 11:12:35 AM
Post by: Erik L on February 03, 2011, 12:51:38 PM
3. I'd appreciate the ability to 'rough out' ships with designed components without having to research them. It's annoying that you have to guess the final ship size, then research the jump drive, then build the ship. And if the jump drive is the wrong size, you either have a more expensive and massive jump drive then you need, or you have to research another one.
I can't talk for others, but my design philosophy has always been to determine the sizes of ship classes before hand, i.e. scouts/survey = 4500 tons, destroyers = 6000 tons, light cruisers = 7500 tons, cruisers = 9000 tons, battlecruisers = 12000 tons, etc. Then design the jump drives to those specifications.
Post by: welchbloke on February 03, 2011, 12:54:11 PM
I can't talk for others, but my design philosophy has always been to determine the sizes of ship classes before hand, i.e. scouts/survey = 4500 tons, destroyers = 6000 tons, light cruisers = 7500 tons, cruisers = 9000 tons, battlecruisers = 12000 tons, etc. Then design the jump drives to those specifications.
I tend to do that as well. The sizes do increase as my tech base improves.
Post by: bean on February 03, 2011, 03:37:37 PM
Post by: Foolcow on February 03, 2011, 05:24:24 PM
Post by: Charlie Beeler on February 04, 2011, 07:53:02 AM
It would be nice if the Task Group order screen allowed you to delete or insert orders from anywhere in the list, rather than just at the end. As it stands now, if I want to make one minor change in a freighter's schedule I usually have to delete all the orders then put them back.
This has been suggested several times over the course of several versions. Long story short... for Aurora it's not going to change. I don't know if Steve is taking this into account in the design of Aurora II.
Post by: bean on February 04, 2011, 03:36:25 PM
Post by: ZimRathbone on February 04, 2011, 09:11:19 PM
One other thing that would be nice would be the ability to set up multiple default missile loadouts for a class. That way your fighters could have anti-fighter loads, anti-ship loads, etc, and you wouldn't have to micromanage them.
The answer to this is similar to the one Charlie gave above (I think that it was Charlie or Kurt that suggested it originally)
Post by: Steve Walmsley on February 06, 2011, 10:41:16 PM
It would be nice if the Task Group order screen allowed you to delete or insert orders from anywhere in the list, rather than just at the end. As it stands now, if I want to make one minor change in a freighter's schedule I usually have to delete all the orders then put them back.
The problem is that by inserting an order in the middle of the list, the remaining orders may make no sense. At the moment the program only allows you to choose orders that you can carry out in your particular location based on what happened in the preceding orders. For example, you can't unload an automated mine unless you are either carrying one or having an earlier order to pick one up. Its a lot harder to filter out possible orders based on what you plan to do in the future as well.
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on February 06, 2011, 10:43:10 PM
2. Missile launchers in PD mode shouldn't engage targets that are out of range. This is almost a bug, but not really. It's simple enough to avoid if you know it's there.
When you set point defence orders you can specify a max engagement range. It should default to the max weapon range.
Steve
Post by: bean on February 07, 2011, 11:44:32 AM
Also, I'd like to be able to move asteroids. It'd make things like defending jump points much easier.
A one missile per salvo PD mode would be nice for bus missiles, as well. As it is, I tend to get massive overkill on a few salvos, and lots of wasted CMBs.
Post by: ExChairman on February 08, 2011, 01:18:34 AM
Post by: Erik L on February 08, 2011, 11:14:48 PM
For that particular engagement, I had set the automatic fire button. It must have messed up the ranges.
Also, I'd like to be able to move asteroids. It'd make things like defending jump points much easier.
A one missile per salvo PD mode would be nice for bus missiles, as well. As it is, I tend to get massive overkill on a few salvos, and lots of wasted CMBs.
Install a small (.1) active scanner on your AMM. If their target pops, they will seek out a new one.
Post by: Erik L on February 08, 2011, 11:16:29 PM
If I'm puttering around the Sol system, it doesn't make much sense for the jump drive to break. It makes more sense for normal engines to break. Likewise weapon failures go up in combat/fleet training.
Post by: schroeam on February 09, 2011, 12:06:12 AM
I'd like to see a weighting on the component failure chance moved from size to usage.
If I'm puttering around the Sol system, it doesn't make much sense for the jump drive to break. It makes more sense for normal engines to break. Likewise weapon failures go up in combat/fleet training.
On the flip side, the jump drive is a vital system and therefore probably has quite a bit more preventative maintenance than your propulsion engines, since they are operating. This means more chances that joe schmuckatelli is going to make a mistake requiring corrective maintenance. I would just keep the component failure random but have a captain with good crew training affect the chance of breakdown due to the quality of preventative maintenance performed by his crew. Just my two cents.
Adam.
Post by: Erik L on February 09, 2011, 12:08:13 AM
On the flip side, the jump drive is a vital system and therefore probably has quite a bit more preventative maintenance than your propulsion engines, since they are operating. This means more chances that joe schmuckatelli is going to make a mistake requiring corrective maintenance. I would just keep the component failure random but have a captain with good crew training affect the chance of breakdown due to the quality of preventative maintenance performed by his crew. Just my two cents.
Adam.
Hopefully our naval boards are smart enough to put crewbeings that have at least a minimal amount of training on preventive maintenance.
I do like the idea of the captain's crew training rating affecting the breakdown chance.
Post by: UnLimiTeD on February 09, 2011, 06:18:46 AM
Post by: bean on February 09, 2011, 10:00:41 AM
Install a small (.1) active scanner on your AMM. If their target pops, they will seek out a new one.I had that. They didn't acquire.
Edit:
While thinking, I've had a few more ideas for things I'd like to see. These are pretty much all things that used to be in aurora, but aren't any more.
1. Missile control. I'm not sure why this was removed (balance or code). If it was for balance, I have a suggestion. Instead of allowing all missiles to be retargeted for free, I would make multiple levels. The most basic is a simple destruct switch, either automatic, or very cheap and no mass. Above that, you might be able to do retargeting to targets detected by onboard sensors, and finally is full control with maybe .4 MSP and a decent cost.
2. Mothballs. I ran across a mention of it, but discovered this had been removed. It seems like it might be useful for older ships, particularly ones it's not economical to refit (engines, etc)
3. Exclusion zones. I read about them in the diplomatic rules, but I believe they can't be done anymore. This is something that seems realistic, though, and might prove useful.
4. Clean warheads. This is new, but it would work sort of like the opposite of enhanced radiation warheads. You sacrifice hitting power on the target for reduced radiation and colateral damage during planetary bombardment.
Edit 2:
Orbital Weapons platforms, like PDCs but in orbit, would be nice. I know you can do them now, but it takes shipyard space, maintainence at the destination, and you have to move them. This way you could do things like lasers for fixed defenses.
Post by: ZimRathbone on February 10, 2011, 06:47:07 AM
Install a small (.1) active scanner on your AMM. If their target pops, they will seek out a new one.
on an AMM this only really works for stationary or slow moving targets - generally missiles will easily cover much more than the detection range of such a small sensor in a 5 sec pulse.
Large ship sensors are a bit more practical (say R100)
Post by: ZimRathbone on February 10, 2011, 07:13:35 AM
I had that. They didn't acquire.Most were due to balance issues
Edit:
While thinking, I've had a few more ideas for things I'd like to see. These are pretty much all things that used to be in aurora, but aren't any more.
Quote from: byron
1. Missile control. I'm not sure why this was removed (balance or code). If it was for balance, I have a suggestion. Instead of allowing all missiles to be retargeted for free, I would make multiple levels. The most basic is a simple destruct switch, either automatic, or very cheap and no mass. Above that, you might be able to do retargeting to targets detected by onboard sensors, and finally is full control with maybe .4 MSP and a decent cost.The problem here was the supersized unstoppable missile storms that were created with full control – there is already the onboard auto retarget option if you add a (large resolution) active sensor on your missiles.[/quote]
Quote from: byron
2. Mothballs. I ran across a mention of it, but discovered this had been removed. It seems like it might be useful for older ships, particularly ones it's not economical to refit (engines, etc) .Again a deliberate choice. Mothball status has never existed in Aurora (it did in Starfire) and IIRC it was specifically to stop a common Starfire tactic of building huge mothballed fleets which could be reactivated fairly quickly, and for which you did not have to pay 15% of the purchase cost every month in maintenance – in Aurora the maintenance cost on an active unit was much less on an ongoing basis, but of course the need to periodically overhaul the ships somewhat offsets it. I think it was also a case where Steve was trying for more a fleet-in –being feel to Aurora
Post by: Starkiller on February 10, 2011, 08:25:04 AM
I notice that even after a NPR's gate construction ship has been destroyed in a system, by
StarSwarm, that they keep sending Gate ships, over time, to be destroyed by StarSwarm. They have
sent military units to battle Precursers who did this, but it's like they don't see StarSwarm as a threat.
In one case, they even detected the approaching Swarm, and started building the Jump Gate anyway.
I woulda run like a bat out of hell! :) Apparently, NPRs aren't seeing them as a threat, though Precursers
seem to be reacted to, in a proper fashion. You might want to check that, or the StarSwarm will do our
job for us. ^_-
Sorry for the spoiler tags, people, but there IS info here some people might like to find out on their own. :)
Eric
Post by: bean on February 10, 2011, 10:23:55 AM
Post by: ExChairman on February 10, 2011, 10:30:20 AM
Would bee nice with some scenery that affects the battle, mountains, woods, cities, etc...
Combat units:
Artillery: Good support, in offens and defence, but easily overrun... Able to attach to HQ units, above the 4 unit limit.
Able to rename unit types before you build them.
Post by: Arwyn on February 10, 2011, 02:20:21 PM
Right now, the single most important stat for ship captains or fleet commanders is the training bonus. While that is and should be a key stat, just because an officer is an effective trainer, it is not an indicator that they would be an effective combat leader.
I found it odd to see that there was a Ground Combat stat for ground officers, but not for fleet officers when the training bonuses were the same.
To that same point, while we have Xenology, Mining, Survey, Logistics, ect. I would love to see something like Sensor Operations, Maintenance Operations, Weapons Officer.
Particularly for immersion/roleplay, it would be nice to have an officer who was a wizard at Sensor Ops, with the bonus adding to the detection range of the ship, or having Maintenance Ops bonus reducing the chance of failure on a ship, or Weapons bonus reducing the reload/refire rate on the ship.
Post by: sausage on February 10, 2011, 10:25:54 PM
Post by: Mel Vixen on February 10, 2011, 10:35:17 PM
What about automated probes? I actually dont like to launch 100 people into space just for some basic scanning works.
Post by: Charlie Beeler on February 11, 2011, 07:59:30 AM
This has been a minor thing, but on the officer front, it would be nice to see something related to combat proficiency on fleet officers similar to the Ground Combat bonus on ground officers.The officer combat modifier is based on the Task Group (or Task Force if present in system) senior officer's Fleet Initiative. That impact combat sequence resolution. The combat resolution modifier is the individual ships crew grade.
Right now, the single most important stat for ship captains or fleet commanders is the training bonus. While that is and should be a key stat, just because an officer is an effective trainer, it is not an indicator that they would be an effective combat leader.
I found it odd to see that there was a Ground Combat stat for ground officers, but not for fleet officers when the training bonuses were the same.
Quote
To that same point, while we have Xenology, Mining, Survey, Logistics, ect. I would love to see something like Sensor Operations, Maintenance Operations, Weapons Officer.Currently there is only one billit per ship and that is ships commander. So far Steve has been unwilling to expand this. That would entail a lot more micro-management than most players would be willing to perform.
Particularly for immersion/roleplay, it would be nice to have an officer who was a wizard at Sensor Ops, with the bonus adding to the detection range of the ship, or having Maintenance Ops bonus reducing the chance of failure on a ship, or Weapons bonus reducing the reload/refire rate on the ship.
Post by: Charlie Beeler on February 11, 2011, 08:00:26 AM
This has probably been suggested several times, and might already exist (haven't played too far to know for sure) but I think it would be cool if pirate organizations appeared in underdeveloped systems
Currently Precursers are filling the "pirate" role.
Post by: Arwyn on February 11, 2011, 01:40:16 PM
The officer combat modifier is based on the Task Group (or Task Force if present in system) senior officer's Fleet Initiative. That impact combat sequence resolution. The combat resolution modifier is the individual ships crew grade.
Currently there is only one billit per ship and that is ships commander. So far Steve has been unwilling to expand this. That would entail a lot more micro-management than most players would be willing to perform.
I don't mean for actual additional officers, I mean adding additional capabilities to the current commander. Right now you can have a captain with multiple skills, so the suggestion would just be to add a few extra ones without touching the number of officers on a ship.
Post by: Erik L on February 12, 2011, 06:17:55 PM
Post by: sloanjh on February 13, 2011, 10:42:18 AM
Several times someone's posted a "look at my scout ship" design, and it's difficult to figure what the "sensor payload" of the ship is so that I can compare with my designs.
John
Post by: bean on February 14, 2011, 10:27:54 AM
1. A miniature cargo handling system for small craft would be nice, so we can load our shuttles quickly.
2. I would like to see a medical tech/longevity technology tree added to biology/genetics. At the moment, that's just wasted space for those of us who don't do genetic engineering. It would reduce medical problems among the leaders you have.
Post by: UnLimiTeD on February 14, 2011, 06:57:41 PM
Being smaller as all military systems are, but dedicated to dropships because of the maintenance failures of all military systems.
Post by: Zed 6 on February 14, 2011, 07:14:01 PM
Post by: Brian Neumann on February 14, 2011, 09:30:08 PM
I just don't agree with the maintenance failure system as it works now. I would argue that it should be reversed in that non-military ships have higher failure rates and military ones less. Tho it may be the way it is now as players probably have more military ships than non-military.What is actually happening is that the civilian ships are assumed to have commercial interests paying for their maintenance. Also historically military systems are always far more prone to breakage than civilian tech is. This is not to say that the military tech is tougher, just that you put far more complicated stuff in a warship, and it is packed in far more tightly. Both of these lead to a higher failure rate than civilian ships have. This is especailly true as with most military ships space is at a great premium, where most civilian ships have for space to work with. More space means they can be built for reliability more than performance. You get the idea by now.
Brian
Post by: Zed 6 on February 15, 2011, 08:30:39 AM
Post by: UnLimiTeD on February 15, 2011, 08:48:32 AM
If something breaks on a Commercial ship, it is very unlikely to be of any critical importance, and can be fixed in the next port without much hassle.
If on a Military ship something breaks, it needs immediate fixing, which costs, while on the civilian freight transportation, is is cheaper, and thus can be abstracted away easily.
With the current systems, a Freighter would need roughly 5000 tons of pure engineering spaces and several hundred men maintenance crews, when that in fact does not happen.
On a big freighter, there is simply nothing important that can break, short of the engine, and why would you inform the player 20 times in every 5 day tick that something on one of his ships has just broken and was repaired by the sole engineer of the ship, requiring a tenth of a maintenance supply? That is work, and it's work that the player can delegate to the inner workings of code, because no one cares.
Post by: bean on February 15, 2011, 12:32:20 PM
Post by: ZimRathbone on February 15, 2011, 09:15:20 PM
This is also a balance issue. If you had to track component failure for all ships it'd get annoying quickly. Military ships spend a lot of time in orbit of a planet with maintainence facilities. Commercial ships don't. I like it the way it is.
This is exactly why the maint system was changed to the current system as important stuff was being lost in the pile of civ maint messages, most of which were unimportant, and also to reduce the huge amount of (boring) micromanagement involved in getting civ ships overhauled & repaired
Post by: bean on February 19, 2011, 02:34:57 PM
Post by: ZimRathbone on February 20, 2011, 12:30:17 AM
I don't like the way refitting works. You have to clone the class, then make the changes. Then, when everyone's refitted, you have to delete the original and change the new one's name (if you want to keep the name). This seems like a lot of trouble for a new sensor system. What I'd propose is a "minor refit mode" where you change the class as-is. It doesn't edit the existing units, but it does alter new-builds, and any that come back in can be refit as well. It'd probably only work for certain things, like electronics, which are easy to change and have shorter lifespans. Maybe the ship has to be within 5% or so.
Hmmm, how to put this delicately?
The reason that you need to clone the class is that the database needs two seperate records - one for the state before the change another for the state after the change otherwise you WILL change all existing units of a particular class in some (but not all) respects. (eg stuff that the program tracks through the class record eg components that make up a unit WILL change but stuff that is recorded on a per unit basis eg max speed will not) - I've seen this effect when SM changing classes post construction - it gets resolved if you refit the unit to the same class
You can have the new class have the same name as the old class if you like - just change the name of the original class to Blaster-OLD or something like that (from the database POV its not required - it just allows users to know which version of the Blaster class you're looking at if they have unique class names - usually done by adding a suffix like -A or Mod 1 or the like. The downside is that if you use auto numbering ship names then it will restart from 001, and you will get duplicate names.
In any case if the change is small enough then you will be able to build both classes in the same shipyard without further work - eg I have a class Imp ( a small missile corvette) which had an upgrade to its ECM & ECCM suites (from 1 to 2) which was saved as the Imp-A class, I was able to build either of these options from the Daawerk Shipyard (which was configured for Imps) or to convert an Imp to an Imp-A if I wanted or build or refit to any non obsolete class that was within the size of the yard and could be refitted to from an Imp for less than 20% of the construction cost of the Imp
Post by: Icebird on February 20, 2011, 12:52:52 AM
I don't know what is the database structure, but if you can have 3 fields with ID, Name and Class_ID, it could work.
Let's say you modify an existing class. The software then create a new entry with same name and Class_ID but new ID. All new ship built use the latest ID, and if you "update" a ship at a shipyard, it will change to use the latest ID in the same Class_ID.
Post by: Erik L on February 20, 2011, 03:08:51 AM
i.e. Earth - United States
Alpha Centauri II - German
Wolf 46 A II - Chinese
Post by: boggo2300 on February 20, 2011, 03:44:42 PM
It'd be nice to be able to set a name theme for officers from a colony.
i.e. Earth - United States
Alpha Centauri II - German
Wolf 46 A II - Chinese
OOOOH! +1 this would be awesome!
Matt
Post by: voknaar on February 21, 2011, 02:35:47 AM
Basically the ship could assist leaving room to modify the turrets and firecon to remove some of the speed ratings and put more range or firepower into them.
Hope that made more sense in writing than it did in my sleep deprived brain.
Post by: Steve Walmsley on February 21, 2011, 05:58:33 AM
After reading a thread in Academy somewhere I had a idea about a way to address the problem with beam defences being not on par with AMM's something to do with beam firecons being the weakness IIRC. Perhaps the ships ability to turn/move should help? My thinking is a bit strange but if a ship was turning into the incoming target it could assist both the turrets and the firecon's because the ship itself is moving in a way to assist in the aiming process. It would probably require coordination of helmsmen and firecon operators, which is a ships commanders area. Or it could be something that could be developed tech wise such as thrusters or autopilot combat assistance.
Basically the ship could assist leaving room to modify the turrets and firecon to remove some of the speed ratings and put more range or firepower into them.
Hope that made more sense in writing than it did in my sleep deprived brain.
I don't want beam defences to be on a par with anti-missiles :)
Anti-missiles require ordnance which has to be produced and shipped to the escort in question. Beam weapons have endless ammunition. It's the same with anti-ship missiles and beams. Missiles are great tactically but have a lot of weaknesses strategically.
Steve
Post by: bean on February 21, 2011, 11:27:16 AM
One thing that would add a lot of realism would be a more sophisticated demographic system. At the moment, all that matters is the raw number of people. Here's what I propose:
Instead of simple population, there are three different population numbers: children, adults, and elderly. Agriculture and services percentages are based off of the total population. Children count as .5, adults and elderly as 1. Only adults can work. Each build cycle, a certain percentage of adults have children, a certain percentage of children become adults, a certain percentage of adults become elderly, and a certain percentage of elderly die. The percentages can be modified by biotech technologies.
This change would also probably change the way population limits work. Each world would have a "carrying capacity" that defines how many people it can support. This is based on hydrosphere, tectonics, land area, etc. Birth rate is partially based on percent of carrying capacity. Infrastructure-supported colonies work the same way, and the capacity can be raised with infrastructure.
I hope all of the above makes sense. It might be a good idea to set it up as an option.
Post by: UnLimiTeD on February 21, 2011, 02:43:39 PM
Now while calculating it that way is nice, the question is if the player at all needs to know if the only way to influence it is technology that affects everyone.
Post by: MattyD on February 21, 2011, 02:59:25 PM
OOOOH! +1 this would be awesome!
Matt
A little spooky that I can quote the entire post but it is correct even down to the two t's in Matt.
This would be great for me as I'm toying with the idea of setting up a 2300 AD game (Another GDW rpg - with 3 arms of human expansion and a big bad nasty waiting out there.) The problem being is that within the French Arm, for instance, there are British and German colonies dotted among the French majority.
The ability to set national profiles for colonies would be a huge help.
Post by: bean on February 21, 2011, 03:07:23 PM
I like that for A2, but for 5.40 I don't see that comming.Even if the player doesn't need to see it, it can be still there. Plus, it might have a fairly large effect on gameplay. After all, for the first few years of a new colony, growth in adults will be limited because of lack of kids. Plus, I can think of three different techs:
Now while calculating it that way is nice, the question is if the player at all needs to know if the only way to influence it is technology that affects everyone.
1. Early maturation. A higher percentage of kids become adults.
2. Longevity. A lower percentage of adults become elderly. Also, a lower percentage of elderly die. However, if done right, the adult-to-elderly ratio will decrease.
3. Birth rate.
Post by: Steve Walmsley on February 21, 2011, 03:08:24 PM
A little spooky that I can quote the entire post but it is correct even down to the two t's in Matt.
This would be great for me as I'm toying with the idea of setting up a 2300 AD game (Another GDW rpg - with 3 arms of human expansion and a big bad nasty waiting out there.) The problem being is that within the French Arm, for instance, there are British and German colonies dotted among the French majority.
The ability to set national profiles for colonies would be a huge help.
I actually tried a campaign based on the same type of theme as 2300 AD. Here is the link:
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,957.0.html
You can already create Empires that use multiple commander name themes, just not specific to planets.
Steve
Post by: Erik L on February 21, 2011, 03:13:41 PM
I actually tried a campaign based on the same type of theme as 2300 AD. Here is the link:
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,957.0.html
You can already create Empires that use multiple commander name themes, just not specific to planets.
Steve
Empires yes, but not within the same empire.
(see 4-5 posts up)
Post by: Steve Walmsley on February 21, 2011, 03:17:10 PM
Empires yes, but not within the same empire.
(see 4-5 posts up)
You can create a single Empire that uses up to five different commander name themes at the same time, based on a percentage distribution. For example, 30% American, 30% Russian, 20% Japanese, 10% German, 10% French. You can set it up on the Ctrl - F2 Race window.
Steve
Post by: Erik L on February 21, 2011, 03:35:59 PM
You can create a single Empire that uses up to five different commander name themes at the same time, based on a percentage distribution. For example, 30% American, 30% Russian, 20% Japanese, 10% German, 10% French. You can set it up on the Ctrl - F2 Race window.
Steve
I do that all the time. But it'd be really nice to be able to simulate ethnic groups within the empire settling planets, and maintaining their cultural identity through names.
I do seem to recall a bug with the 5 name theme... If you include the "major" name theme from above, it throws an error.
Post by: boggo2300 on February 21, 2011, 04:00:28 PM
A little spooky that I can quote the entire post but it is correct even down to the two t's in Matt.
This would be great for me as I'm toying with the idea of setting up a 2300 AD game (Another GDW rpg - with 3 arms of human expansion and a big bad nasty waiting out there.) The problem being is that within the French Arm, for instance, there are British and German colonies dotted among the French majority.
The ability to set national profiles for colonies would be a huge help.
Even spookier when you look at some of my old posts about 2300 ;)
Matt
Post by: ndkid on February 22, 2011, 07:27:41 PM
Post by: sloanjh on February 22, 2011, 11:05:03 PM
Could the event text for an officer retiring contain the posting of the retiring officer, similar to how accidental deaths read? Right now, whenever someone retires, I have to audit every team in the galaxy to see whether the retirement affected any of them.Actually, it would be nice if there were a LOT more text in the "goodbye" window for dead/retired officer, e.g. stats, promotion rating, posting, age, (pre-death) health .... This might be a compromise between the old "keep everyone around including the kitchen sink" behavior and the current "Trotsky*" behavior. At least we'd get a chance to say good by to our beloved Grand Admiral.
John
* - "Who was that guy? The name sounds familiar, but I can't find any record of him ever having existed."
Post by: Titus bionicus on February 24, 2011, 09:16:23 AM
First, I wanted to thank Steve for making such a wonderful and cool game.
Then, I've recently stumbled upon a banks' novel and I thought it would be interesting to have in aurora something like the Culture's GSV, that is enormous ships which are so big that they contain entire habitats inside so as to transport 100ks of people, without having to freeze them cryogenically.
These would be interesting from a strategic point of view because since GSVs are like movable planets, with their own shipyards and everything they could project power even more effectively than carriers.
I know it would require enormous shipyards to build such beasts, making it nearly impossible to do, still I think it would be interesting to see components like 'big, city-like, habitat' or 'ship construction module' to be added so as to make it at least theoretically possible, also allowing for smaller version of these ships to be actually built.
Post by: bean on February 24, 2011, 02:58:34 PM
Also, could PDCs be clearly marked as such? It's sort of hard to mistake something on the ground for a ship in orbit. I ran into trouble with this in the same game.
Post by: ShadoCat on February 24, 2011, 05:46:22 PM
Hi to all,
First, I wanted to thank Steve for making such a wonderful and cool game.
Then, I've recently stumbled upon a banks' novel and I thought it would be interesting to have in aurora something like the Culture's GSV, that is enormous ships which are so big that they contain entire habitats inside so as to transport 100ks of people, without having to freeze them cryogenically.
These would be interesting from a strategic point of view because since GSVs are like movable planets, with their own shipyards and everything they could project power even more effectively than carriers.
I know it would require enormous shipyards to build such beasts, making it nearly impossible to do, still I think it would be interesting to see components like 'big, city-like, habitat' or 'ship construction module' to be added so as to make it at least theoretically possible, also allowing for smaller version of these ships to be actually built.
This was what I originally wanted Orbital Habitats to be able to do. I don't think they could be built that way in the current Aurora because of a large, existing, code base.
I'm hopeful for Aurora II.
Post by: Sotak246 on February 25, 2011, 03:40:39 AM
Mark
Post by: Steve Walmsley on February 25, 2011, 04:22:43 AM
In the planetary combat reports, the enemy damage is just a basic, unit damaged by x%. I would like to see the type of unit and possible even numbered unit. Fighting an enemy you would be able to tell what you are facing, Heavy Assault, Marine, etc. Your intel. people should also have a good idea which specific units you are facing. So a report such as: Enemy Heavy Assault 001 took 20% damage.
Mark
Added for v5.40
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on February 25, 2011, 04:30:20 AM
Could the event text for an officer retiring contain the posting of the retiring officer, similar to how accidental deaths read? Right now, whenever someone retires, I have to audit every team in the galaxy to see whether the retirement affected any of them.
I checked the code and current assignment is displayed for both accidents and retirements. If none is shown, he didn't have an assignment. I'll add code to specifically mention "No assignment"
Steve
Post by: ndkid on February 25, 2011, 08:10:58 AM
I checked the code and current assignment is displayed for both accidents and retirements. If none is shown, he didn't have an assignment. I'll add code to specifically mention "No assignment"
Steve
Here's an example from my last turn:
"Captain James Saunders has retired from the service at the age of 61"
Captain Saunders was a member of the Samuel Wallace Xenologist Team, which is now short-staffed.
Could it be that just due to the order of operations, retiring officers are being removed from their assignments before the event is being written out?
EDIT: AH-HA! Steve, I just had an officer retire due to severe medical problem, and *that* shows the assignment. So accidents and medical problems seem to, but old age retirement does not. Does that help?
Post by: Steve Walmsley on February 25, 2011, 03:43:53 PM
EDIT: AH-HA! Steve, I just had an officer retire due to severe medical problem, and *that* shows the assignment. So accidents and medical problems seem to, but old age retirement does not. Does that help?
That does help! I've confirmed that the assignment text is provided for medical retirement but not old age retirement. Fixed for v5.40
Steve
Post by: Erik L on February 25, 2011, 05:09:22 PM
Post by: Steve Walmsley on February 25, 2011, 06:44:49 PM
Some sort of display option on the System Map for ruins. I've lost a ruined intact city, and I can't find it. :(If you look on the Display 2 tab on the system map there is a list of all known ruins
Steve
Post by: sloanjh on February 27, 2011, 11:35:24 AM
I'd like to see what the difference in damage is between my 20cm C3 UV Laser which only fires every 20 seconds and a 15cm C3 UV Laser which fires every 10 seconds.
John
Post by: sloanjh on February 27, 2011, 11:49:06 AM
Go to non-integer sizes for beam weapons, and build the power plants into the design. In other words, in the design window you would specify the recharge time (bounded below by the race's best recharge rate) and Focal Size (and reduced size if any), then Aurora would build a big enough power plant into the weapon to recharge it over that amount of time.
In the example in my previous post, for the 15 cm laser (power req of 6) and C3 recharge technology, you'd be able to choose recharge times of 10s, 15s, 20s, etc. (10s = 5s*(6power/C3)). If you chose 10s, it would build a power-3 reactor into the mount; assuming Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor Tech (4.5 power/HS), the size of the mount would be 4.66 (4 for the laser, plus 2/3 rounded down for the reactor). If you chose 15s, it the size would be 4.44 (Power 2/Reactor 4.5=.44 for the reactor in this case). Note that I'm rounding down so that 3*(2/3) fits into 2HS; you seem to have already done this for reduced size launchers....
For the 20cm laser (power req of 10), it takes at least 20s to recharge at C3, which corresponds to a recharge rate of 2.5/5s. So the size would be 6.55 (6 for the laser, 2.5/4.5=.55 for the reactor) with a recharge time of 20s.
John
Post by: sloanjh on February 27, 2011, 11:55:58 AM
I build a LOT of 1000 ton utility ships (scouts, colliers, ...). At present, I have have a choice between putting 1 engine in, which corresponds to 25% hull mass (lower than I'd typicall like) or putting 2 engines in, which corresponds to 50% hull mass (higher than I'd like). It would be nice to put e.g. a 7.5 HS or 8 HS engine into such ships so that I could tune their speed to the rest of my fleet (which typically runs at about 10 engines per 120 HS, i.e. a little more than 40%). Maybe best in this mode would be to allow the designer to pick the power level, then adjust the size of the engine to match.
John
Post by: Erik L on February 27, 2011, 12:07:43 PM
If you look on the Display 2 tab on the system map there is a list of all known ruins
Steve
I lost which system it was in. :( Though I did find it eventually by scanning all the systems in the System View window.
Post by: Hawkeye on February 27, 2011, 12:41:58 PM
Post by: sloanjh on February 27, 2011, 12:53:31 PM
At present, "add slipway" effectively freezes the yard to build whatever it's currently tooled to build, since giving a retool command (other than the first one) demolishes the existing work on the new slipway, even if it's 99% complete. For larger yards, for which additional slipways can require many years, this strongly discourages ever adding a new slipway since the target design will end up years out of date, without the ability even to make incremental upgrades (other than those that fit within the "same design" criterion). This doesn't feel realistic - it seems like pausing construction on the new slipway to retool the active ones should be allowed.
It seems like this could be done by adding a column to the DB table for "new slipway progress" that could be used to stash the amount of work that's been done on slipway expansion while another SY task occupies the "current progress" (or whatever it's called) column.
Note that this is essentially the same problem for slipways that was solved a while back for capacity expansion - if expansion is interrupted, the intermediate progress is now not lost.
John
Post by: sloanjh on February 27, 2011, 01:15:06 PM
At present, if a turret is size 4.02HS, then it's rounded up to 5.0HS. This can lead to weird "step" behavior. For example, for a size-3 antimissile laser and a desired tracking speed of 16000, there is no difference between tracking speed tech of 5000 km/s and 6250 km/s - both end up with 4HS/laser, even if one goes to a quad mount.
If this suggestion is implemented, then you might also want to reduce the size cost of addition lasers on a mount beyond the first; otherwise there would be little incentive to go to e.g. quad mounts. For example, the tracking gear size could be 50% of the original cost for each weapon in the mount beyond the first.
At present this effect is somewhat present (i.e. a quad mount might be 1HS cheaper than 4 single mounts), but this is entirely due to rounding effects. The suggestions above would regularize this effect.
John
Post by: voknaar on February 27, 2011, 01:33:03 PM
My idea was they function as a hybrid of ground forces and space ships. How it would work - they could be kept and maintained in boat bays / hangers when a carrier ship enters orbit of a planet it would then be able to load and unload the fighters to initiate air to ground strikes similar to bombardment except slightly less lethal to populations in several ways first it would do heck of a lot less damage to both ground forces and pops and doesn't cause radiation & dust. The weakness of using them is once deployed the carrier can't leave because the aerospace fighters can't land on the ground surface. SO essentially its a less powerful more long term way ships in orbit can lend a offencive hand in ground combat. Ground forces can attack back perhaps at a small penalty.
But after a small brainwave moment after the above concept a new ground unit could be made called an airfield, which allows a certain number of Aerospace Fighter units to land on planet side, a bit like how PDC's can hold ground units IIRC
Its only a concept idea really, I'm not knowledgable about coding or mathematics about how it'd all fit in nicely with Aurora as it is now.
Post by: Erik L on February 27, 2011, 01:49:32 PM
Hm, there should be a list of all known ruins, not only the ones in that system
I did find it :)
*goes off and cleans glasses*
Post by: Erik L on February 27, 2011, 01:50:45 PM
But after a small brainwave moment after the above concept a new ground unit could be made called an airfield, which allows a certain number of Aerospace Fighter units to land on planet side, a bit like how PDC's can hold ground units IIRC
Its only a concept idea really, I'm not knowledgable about coding or mathematics about how it'd all fit in nicely with Aurora as it is now.
You could just put a hangar in a PDC...
Post by: Erik L on February 27, 2011, 01:52:45 PM
Stupid 30% bonus scientist with 50 labs thinking she can retire at 72. Pfft.
Post by: Erik L on February 27, 2011, 01:54:55 PM
Post by: voknaar on February 27, 2011, 01:57:24 PM
You could just put a hangar in a PDC...
Or do that :) I don't know the inns and outs of aurora throughly sorry.
Post by: SakSak on February 27, 2011, 05:39:11 PM
While we at the moment can drop nukes and whatnot on enemy ground forces, this is a bit of a hit and miss - and more often than not causes some kind of unwanted damage to the existing structures or the environment.
But what about an option to designate a ship with beam weapons, or the individual weapons within a ship, as orbital support for ground troops. When engaged in battle, a beam weapon in orbit, capable of doing damage to the planet surface, would add a modifier to a brigade/division combat ability.
Perhaps limit this so that any beam weapon that would cause more than 1-2 points of damage could also cause environmental/collateral damage, but within this small limit there would be no chance of causing unintended damage from that weapon. A 'safe' method of providing limited support to ground units. Connect this ability to either the brigade of division HQ unit (non-HQ units lack the equipment/skill to accurately call pin-point orbital support fire by themselves), and apply a small bonus to all units that HQ commands. While engaged in Orbital Support mode, the ship would be unable to leave orbit before ground operations are complete, or if it did the ground forces supported suffer a morale penalty for a limited amount of time - perhaps until next combat roll? ("Where's our damned fire support?!" "Scanning asteroids on the other side of the system!" "Well f%&#, they're leaving us here to die?").
Post by: voknaar on February 27, 2011, 06:40:56 PM
Another necro suggestion... Some form of tech that extends retirement age...
Stupid 30% bonus scientist with 50 labs thinking she can retire at 72. Pfft.
Perhaps a biology tech for extending the races average life span?
Post by: IanD on February 28, 2011, 08:52:23 AM
Regards
Post by: Steve Walmsley on February 28, 2011, 10:02:29 AM
Modern combat aircraft have a receiver in them that lets them know when they are lit up by a hostile fire control, but my highly advanced spacecraft know nothing until the missiles are inbound, sometimes only five seconds from impact. It would also provide a way to threaten NPRs without actually starting a war.
Regards
I like this idea, although rather than implement it as a stand-alone change I will include it when I get eventually around to the EW rewrite.
Steve
Post by: Vulcanphsyco on March 01, 2011, 01:49:20 PM
Post by: sloanjh on March 03, 2011, 08:21:00 AM
It just occurred to me while answering a question about the source/destination that a nice realism effect would be for those pesky civilians to go where they want to, rather than where you tell them to. This would probably have an interesting effect on the diplomatic game - your civies would be sneaking into alien empires and setting up colonies. Further mechanics along this line would allow players to "disavow" a settlement in alien territory (so the aliens wouldn't want to go to war with you). If the aliens attacked others of your species though (even if they were disavowed) it would generate negative diplo points in your population towards the aliens. This would lead to the need for a civ to police its own border to keep its civies from entering alien space; "arresting" a civie ship would presumably lead to warning points (the ones that happen when ships are blown up to tell the civies to stay out of a system) for its destination in alien space so a civ wouldn't have a never-ending stream of civies trying to cross the border. And so on....
If one were to do this (especially for 10) it would probably be best to put a "happiness" score on each population, which would be some combination of unemployment, wealth generation, %consumer goods requirements satisfied, colonization cost, total population, etc. (I really like the consumer goods one.) The flow of colonists could then be driven by a desire to go from unhappy planets to happy planets. The trick would be to set it up so that people would want to emigrate from high population worlds like Earth to low pop/undesireable worlds - you'd probably have to throw in a factor like log(total population+1) to the unhappiness to represent the "new frontiers" desire of a few people to move from the "city" to the "wilderness".
John
Post by: ShadoCat on March 03, 2011, 07:51:53 PM
The amount each month could depend on the living conditions in each empire and how militant the empires are (militant empires are less likely to allow their populations to leave).
This would allow population transfer in multi-government Earth campaigns.
The reason I'm looking for this is because I have an idea for a campaign in which only a portion of Earth's population has TN tech. This allows a reasonable starting population without inflicting some disaster on Earth. It also would allow population recruitment for colonization purposes (I thought that this was more realistic than assuming that everyone else would just stay on Earth).
Post by: oleg on March 04, 2011, 01:39:55 AM
If one were to do this (especially for 10) it would probably be best to put a "happiness" score on each population, which would be some combination of unemployment, wealth generation, %consumer goods requirements satisfied, colonization cost, total population, etc. (I really like the consumer goods one.) The flow of colonists could then be driven by a desire to go from unhappy planets to happy planets. The trick would be to set it up so that people would want to emigrate from high population worlds like Earth to low pop/undesireable worlds - you'd probably have to throw in a factor like log(total population+1) to the unhappiness to represent the "new frontiers" desire of a few people to move from the "city" to the "wilderness".
John
Hey John good post and I really like this idea and it could as well be linked to base species characteristics to drive this behavior. It probably generates some unforeseen scenarios as well.
Post by: Edward Hamilton on March 04, 2011, 09:49:41 PM
If this is already hiding somewhere in plain sight, I apologize.
Post by: Erik L on March 04, 2011, 09:55:31 PM
Very minor suggestion: Can the Leader screen indicate whether a given officer is male or female? With some of the name sets I have trouble guessing. A little embarrassing when I'm doing a write up, and suddenly discover I've been using the wrong pronoun!
If this is already hiding somewhere in plain sight, I apologize.
This is actually in the database. It just never made it out into the display code.
Post by: Peter Rhodan on March 05, 2011, 12:18:51 AM
Can you set it so that if a ship is told to load something that has run out or is unavailable - there is in an interupt that specifies the problem then checks to see if the orders are set to cycle - if the are the offending order is cycled as if it has been done whilst if not set to cycle the order list is left intact so you can see what you had planned.
Same with trying to unload something you don't have which is possible now with the above cycle procedure.
Post by: bean on March 05, 2011, 12:28:03 PM
Second, could the estimated mass be calculated based on power and speed? It's sort of annoying to have to do it by hand when you want it.
Post by: sloanjh on March 06, 2011, 07:43:24 PM
It just occurred to me that with the introduction of "standard" jumps as part of the game mechanics (as opposed to a convenience that ignores the game mechanics to avoid micro-management), that squadron jumps are now special in the same way that afterburners on a jet engine might be. It seems to make sense to limit commercial engines so that they are unable to use the mode that is used in WP assaults.
John
Post by: sloanjh on March 09, 2011, 10:34:51 PM
When I'm probing a system, I'm adjusting the throttle on my scout ships a LOT. I'll typically set a waypoint a few days away from a planet at slow speed (e.g. 1000 km/s), have the scout ship charge up to it at full speed, then slow to something like 1000 km/s (to cut my thermal signature) and creep up on the planet. What I'd like to be able to do is to set the entire scout sequence in one go when I first enter the system. Because the speed changes can't be included as orders, I have to break things up into constant-speed sequences. This leads to a LOT of interrupts where a TG reaches a change-speed waypoint, and I have to go set the next leg of the course and change the speed. If I could give a "Change Speed" order at target locations, I'd be able to program the whole probe in one go.
John
Post by: voknaar on March 10, 2011, 01:34:19 AM
Post by: ardem on March 11, 2011, 01:02:58 AM
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,3329.0.html
Post by: Deon on March 11, 2011, 04:40:39 AM
Post by: Mel Vixen on March 12, 2011, 07:32:45 AM
edit: on the other hand would it be nice to have some civilians armed as local police forces etc.
Post by: sloanjh on March 13, 2011, 11:27:45 AM
I like to have 3-researchers going in each tech field, with each one having something queued (so as to not lose progress). Whenever I add a new project (or adjust labs, or ...) the scrollbar resets to the top of the list when it refreshes (actually, what I'd really like is for the scrollbar not to reset, but I figure that that's hard....) It just occurred to me that the projects that I'm most interested in are the most recent ones, which are exactly the ones at the bottom of the list which are most likely to be off-screen. If the sort order were reversed, then the most recent projects would be at the top of the list and visible after the reset.
John
Post by: sloanjh on March 13, 2011, 12:06:43 PM
The one improvement I would like would be to place the tow into the target fleet if specified. In other words, if I'm towing "Genesis 002" and give a "release tractored ships" order with TG "Terraforming Mars" as the target, then I'd like Genesis 002 to show up as a member of Terraforming Mars, rather than a new TG "TR Genesis 002". When targetting a population, the current behavior of spawning a new TG is fine.
This will indeed cut a big chunk of micromanagement out of my games - Thanks!
John
Post by: sloanjh on March 13, 2011, 12:38:59 PM
I just realize that, as I often do, I just put naval personnel on my terraformers and tugs by forgetting to click the "conscripts" box in the class design window. Oops :) At present, there really isn't a good way to fix this in SM mode, unless I kill the ship and SM a copy (which is a bit drastic, plus I don't know how it interacts with my crew reserve pool). It would be so much easier if there were a tiny button I could push that would give all those navy guys to go back to the crew reserve and send the press gangs errrr I mean recruiters out into the streets to grab some civies.
Another thing that I often run into is having a bunch of ICBM missile bases with crews that are trained up to the 28% level, while my crew reserve pool is empty and I'm throwing barely-trained gutter-scrapings onto my new construction. My commander of personnel would REALLY like to get his hands on this source of trained personnel by rotating crew through the missile bases rather than leaving them there ad infinitum. If I had the "replace with conscripts" button I could get the crew out of the bases that way, but then the pendulum would swing too far in the opposite direction. A "replace with standard crew" would basically reap all those training points and put them into ships that are going out into the fleet (think of it as pulling out the most seasoned NCOs to ride herd on the conscripted masses who've had minimal training).
John
Post by: chrislocke2000 on March 14, 2011, 07:48:18 AM
Post by: Steve Walmsley on March 14, 2011, 10:33:37 AM
I just tried out the new (in 5.3) tractor orders, and they're (almost) perfect!
The one improvement I would like would be to place the tow into the target fleet if specified. In other words, if I'm towing "Genesis 002" and give a "release tractored ships" order with TG "Terraforming Mars" as the target, then I'd like Genesis 002 to show up as a member of Terraforming Mars, rather than a new TG "TR Genesis 002". When targetting a population, the current behavior of spawning a new TG is fine.
This will indeed cut a big chunk of micromanagement out of my games - Thanks!
Added for v5.42. When a fleet is the destination of a release tractor order, the released ship(s) will be added to the destination fleet.
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on March 14, 2011, 10:35:05 AM
Copying the state of the "conscripts only" button when a class is copied on the F5 screen would be nice.
Added for v5.42
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on March 14, 2011, 10:46:31 AM
Reverse-sort the research and queued-research panes.
I like to have 3-researchers going in each tech field, with each one having something queued (so as to not lose progress). Whenever I add a new project (or adjust labs, or ...) the scrollbar resets to the top of the list when it refreshes (actually, what I'd really like is for the scrollbar not to reset, but I figure that that's hard....) It just occurred to me that the projects that I'm most interested in are the most recent ones, which are exactly the ones at the bottom of the list which are most likely to be off-screen. If the sort order were reversed, then the most recent projects would be at the top of the list and visible after the reset.
For v5.42, the scrollbar no longer resets. If you add a project to the queue, the bar scrolls to the bottom. If you remove a project, the project above it in the list is selected and the scroll bar moves accordingly.
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on March 14, 2011, 10:54:19 AM
Very minor suggestion: Can the Leader screen indicate whether a given officer is male or female? With some of the name sets I have trouble guessing. A little embarrassing when I'm doing a write up, and suddenly discover I've been using the wrong pronoun!
Added for v5.42, although not every theme has the male/female flag so in that case it will default to male.
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on March 14, 2011, 11:05:11 AM
Was it suggested to mark designs as "not avaliable to civilians"? Sometimes I want to make a design for a specific task and don't want to have them in tons flying around for civilians.
I have added this but it needs a database change so I may take it out temporarily if I release a v5.42. Remind me to put it back for v5.50 if that is the case :)
Steve
Post by: Ziusudra on March 14, 2011, 11:15:29 AM
On the Class Design window in the Design View tab: what do you think about being able to collapse the component groups? (Like you can with GU HQs. )
The Damaged Ships, Shipping Lines and Tech Data on ships windows are re-sizable but the contents don't change.
Post by: Steve Walmsley on March 14, 2011, 11:18:20 AM
Hi to all,
First, I wanted to thank Steve for making such a wonderful and cool game.
Then, I've recently stumbled upon a banks' novel and I thought it would be interesting to have in aurora something like the Culture's GSV, that is enormous ships which are so big that they contain entire habitats inside so as to transport 100ks of people, without having to freeze them cryogenically.
These would be interesting from a strategic point of view because since GSVs are like movable planets, with their own shipyards and everything they could project power even more effectively than carriers.
I know it would require enormous shipyards to build such beasts, making it nearly impossible to do, still I think it would be interesting to see components like 'big, city-like, habitat' or 'ship construction module' to be added so as to make it at least theoretically possible, also allowing for smaller version of these ships to be actually built.
It isn't really possible at the moment without a huge rewrite of the population-related code because populations and industry are tied to system bodies. That is why I had to set up Orbitat habitats in the way I did. However, you mentioned 'movable planets', which is an interesting idea because if I added a way to move small asteroids that would effectively create a moveable population. You could add population in ground-based or orbital habitats, factories, shipyards, PDCs, etc and then move the entire asteroid and all its ground-based and orbital facilities at once. Obviously, the 'planetary engines' involved would be very high tech, very large and very expensive. I could also see some nightmare scenarios involving crashing an asteroid into a planet. Suffice to say this won't be in the next version but its an interesting idea for the future.
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on March 14, 2011, 11:22:57 AM
Is there a reason the Class Design window cannot be minimized?
Just an oversight. Fixed for v5.42
Quote
The Damaged Ships, Shipping Lines and Tech Data on ships windows are re-sizable but the contents don't change.
They are bugs which I will fix for the next version. BTW, which window do you mean by Tech Data on Ships? I thought you might mean the Intelligence window or the Tech View window but those seem fine. Probably me just being dumb :)
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on March 14, 2011, 11:24:16 AM
On the Class Design window in the Design View tab: what do you think about being able to collapse the component groups? (Like you can with GU HQs. )
That might be useful but its a database change so I'll table it until after v5.42
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on March 14, 2011, 11:30:30 AM
This is an old one, but I figure it's worth a ressurection....
Go to non-integer sizes for beam weapons, and build the power plants into the design. In other words, in the design window you would specify the recharge time (bounded below by the race's best recharge rate) and Focal Size (and reduced size if any), then Aurora would build a big enough power plant into the weapon to recharge it over that amount of time.
In the example in my previous post, for the 15 cm laser (power req of 6) and C3 recharge technology, you'd be able to choose recharge times of 10s, 15s, 20s, etc. (10s = 5s*(6power/C3)). If you chose 10s, it would build a power-3 reactor into the mount; assuming Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor Tech (4.5 power/HS), the size of the mount would be 4.66 (4 for the laser, plus 2/3 rounded down for the reactor). If you chose 15s, it the size would be 4.44 (Power 2/Reactor 4.5=.44 for the reactor in this case). Note that I'm rounding down so that 3*(2/3) fits into 2HS; you seem to have already done this for reduced size launchers....
For the 20cm laser (power req of 10), it takes at least 20s to recharge at C3, which corresponds to a recharge rate of 2.5/5s. So the size would be 6.55 (6 for the laser, 2.5/4.5=.55 for the reactor) with a recharge time of 20s.
John
I have been thinking about this one myself for a while. It would also make life easier for new players as sorting out power plants does cause problems. It is a fairly major change though as it would involve component design, the recharging mechanics and all the NPR beam-related design code (and I would have to change all the designs in my campaign :)). So this is definitely on the list but probably not until a major update and a new campaign for me.
Steve
Post by: Ziusudra on March 14, 2011, 11:33:52 AM
Quote from: Steve Walmsley link=topic=2828. msg32121#msg32121 date=1300119777
BTW, which window do you mean by Tech Data on Ships? I thought you might mean the Intelligence window or the Tech View window but those seem fine. Probably me just being dumb :)From Main Menu -> Empires -> "Tech Data on Ships" (5th menu item from the bottom). The window title is "Tech Data held on Ships".
Post by: Steve Walmsley on March 14, 2011, 11:43:12 AM
From Main Menu -> Empires -> "Tech Data on Ships" (5th menu item from the bottom). The window title is "Tech Data held on Ships".
Aha! Yes, it was me being dumb :)
Steve
Post by: voknaar on March 14, 2011, 01:50:56 PM
For v5.42, the scrollbar no longer resets. If you add a project to the queue, the bar scrolls to the bottom. If you remove a project, the project above it in the list is selected and the scroll bar moves accordingly.
Steve
Could this also be applied to the 'System Generation and Display window'? It would be a neat little extra to not have it scroll back up after adding a colony to a moon when you have something in the order of 600+ asteroids, several dozen moons and a handful of planets to scroll thorugh.
Post by: sloanjh on March 14, 2011, 11:29:46 PM
For v5.42, the scrollbar no longer resets. If you add a project to the queue, the bar scrolls to the bottom. If you remove a project, the project above it in the list is selected and the scroll bar moves accordingly.
Steve
Ooooh - Shiny!!!! Thanks for this and the other bug fixes/suggestions over the last few days.
John
PS - I assume that removing the first item on the list moves the selection to the one below it (i.e. the new first entry)?
Post by: sloanjh on March 14, 2011, 11:31:17 PM
I have been thinking about this one myself for a while. It would also make life easier for new players as sorting out power plants does cause problems. It is a fairly major change though as it would involve component design, the recharging mechanics and all the NPR beam-related design code (and I would have to change all the designs in my campaign :)). So this is definitely on the list but probably not until a major update and a new campaign for me.
Steve
Agreed (on the reasons for holding off until a more opportune time). Like I said, I just wanted to throw it back into the mix....
John
Post by: Charlie Beeler on March 15, 2011, 12:48:31 PM
Agreed (on the reasons for holding off until a more opportune time). Like I said, I just wanted to throw it back into the mix....
John
If I may interject... perhaps this (on mount power for beams) should be optional. Personally I like having powerplants seperate.
As a matter of fact I'd like to see engines having a power requirement as well. Similiar in concept to conjectural designs for nuclear pulse and nuclear electric rockets. Reactor provides power that the engines require to generate movement and use fuel.
Post by: sloanjh on March 15, 2011, 11:32:57 PM
The ability to specify class missile loadout IDs (e.g. "Anti-Shipping", "Anti-FAC", ...), specifiy multiple class loadouts to a class (keyed by the ID), and give an order "load ordnance at colony/collier X using loadout Y" (the pane for specifying teams/ground units to be picked up etc. could be used for Y).
See this thread in the academy for someone who looks like he needs it....
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,3356.new.html
John
Post by: Beersatron on March 16, 2011, 12:24:09 AM
I am on a conventional start and my freighters/colony ships are going at about 1k km/s, the civies have about 5 of each and that is great but in 10/15 years I will have freighters than go 4k km/s but the civies will still have the 1k km/s ships and probably have a lot more of them.
I guess you could maybe track the age of the civie ship against another freighter or colony design being available and then subtract a percentage of the original ship's cost from the new ship cost?
Post by: James Patten on March 16, 2011, 05:14:20 PM
I explored a system and discovered enemy soldiers on one of the worlds. I marked it (made it a colony) and sent my exploration ships on to other tasks. Much later I was able to bring in soldiers and land them. However, I don't have anyone to attack, but I know there's soldiers there. I'd like to not have to bring back a ship with a sensor.
Post by: IanD on March 17, 2011, 08:06:39 AM
Regards
Post by: Elouda on March 17, 2011, 02:09:29 PM
1) Some way to move missiles as cargo. Magazines can hold up to 20 MSP per HS, so allowing missiles to be 'crated' into cargo holds at 1 MSP per HS (or 100 MSP for a standard Cargo Hold) would not be unreasonable, and provide a way to ship them between bases. They would have to be unloaded at a planet before being loaded into a magazine, so you could not transfer missiles from a cargo ship to a collier, etc while in space.
2) The ability to contract minerals and population (and fuel? civilian tanker designs?) for transport by civilians.
3) Ability to order speed changes through the orders list, the same way one can activate sensors and shields.
4) A way to activate active sensors independently for each ship, rather than all on or all off.
5) Some more incentive to build orbital bases. Currently there is very little reason to do so, as PDCs can easily be much bigger, and orbital bases require a shipyard. Either allow them to be built on planets as orbital habitats are, or maybe allow shipyards to build orbital bases up to 2x or even 5x their maximum 'ship' size.
Post by: Steve Walmsley on March 17, 2011, 03:57:11 PM
4) A way to activate active sensors independently for each ship, rather than all on or all off.
You can do this on the F6 Ship window or on the F8 Combat Overview window.
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on March 17, 2011, 03:59:06 PM
5) Some more incentive to build orbital bases. Currently there is very little reason to do so, as PDCs can easily be much bigger, and orbital bases require a shipyard. Either allow them to be built on planets as orbital habitats are, or maybe allow shipyards to build orbital bases up to 2x or even 5x their maximum 'ship' size.
The main advantage of orbital bases (which are essentially ships without engines) is that you can tow them somewhere else - or put a single engine on them so they can move themselves. You can't do that with a PDC. Also, if an enemy raid destroys an orbital base you won't suffer collateral damage to industry.
Steve
Post by: Elouda on March 17, 2011, 04:12:24 PM
You can do this on the F6 Ship window or on the F8 Combat Overview window.
Steve
Im only seeing options to toggle sensors on a per ship basis, not a per sensor basis.
What I meant was being able to engage a specific sensor on a ship, rather than having them all on or off. So a fleet would be able to use their low strength R1 sensors with low GPS values incase of a sudden attack, but leave the more powerful main arrays offline to avoid detection.
Post by: Steve Walmsley on March 17, 2011, 04:26:52 PM
Im only seeing options to toggle sensors on a per ship basis, not a per sensor basis.
What I meant was being able to engage a specific sensor on a ship, rather than having them all on or off. So a fleet would be able to use their low strength R1 sensors with low GPS values incase of a sudden attack, but leave the more powerful main arrays offline to avoid detection.
Ah sorry - 'I thought independently for each ship' meant as opposed to on/off for a whole fleet. I'll have to figure out how best to tackle this as the flag for sensors on/off is at the ship level. There isn't a separate table in the DB for individual sensors.
Steve
Post by: bean on March 17, 2011, 05:39:51 PM
Post by: Brian Neumann on March 17, 2011, 09:41:49 PM
Ah sorry - 'I thought independently for each ship' meant as opposed to on/off for a whole fleet. I'll have to figure out how best to tackle this as the flag for sensors on/off is at the ship level. There isn't a separate table in the DB for individual sensors.Any chance you could set up something where there are 3-4 slots to assign different fire control to in the ship design stage. Then each slot can be activated individually at the ship level. This way when I design a ship I can assign all of my res 1 sensors to slot 1, my res 16 sensors to slot 2, ect. When I go to the individual ship display (F6) the toggle for sensors on becomes 4-5 buttons. One for each slot, and one to activate/deactivate all of them. This way you get away with out making an entire new table, just expanding the ship table a bit. Which slot I use is my choice, although it would probably help to keep similiar purpose sensors in the same slots.
Steve
Brian
Post by: Narmio on March 18, 2011, 01:34:31 AM
OK, so that was more of a rant than a suggestion, but essentially:
Dividends based on profits not total wealth. Especially when total wealth is literally 99.95% government subsidies! Or maybe "no dividends for X period after subsidies", or "track earned wealth and subsidised/starting wealth separately". But those seem more complicated than "pay dividends on profits only".
Post by: Steve Walmsley on March 18, 2011, 04:35:56 AM
Any chance you could set up something where there are 3-4 slots to assign different fire control to in the ship design stage. Then each slot can be activated individually at the ship level. This way when I design a ship I can assign all of my res 1 sensors to slot 1, my res 16 sensors to slot 2, ect. When I go to the individual ship display (F6) the toggle for sensors on becomes 4-5 buttons. One for each slot, and one to activate/deactivate all of them. This way you get away with out making an entire new table, just expanding the ship table a bit. Which slot I use is my choice, although it would probably help to keep similiar purpose sensors in the same slots.
Brian
Its not that simple :). The fire controls aren't on the Ship table. The original component is in the ShipDesignComponents table. Whether a class has that system and how many it has is recorded in the ClassComponent table. Individual ships only have records of which components are damaged, using the DamagedComponent table. Otherwise the ship uses the components from the ClassComponent table for its class. What I really need is a table that links Ships to ClassComponent (with a check on DamagedComponent) to handle the on/off for individual components.
Steve
Post by: Brian Neumann on March 18, 2011, 05:38:59 AM
Its not that simple :). The fire controls aren't on the Ship table. The original component is in the ShipDesignComponents table. Whether a class has that system and how many it has is recorded in the ClassComponent table. Individual ships only have records of which components are damaged, using the DamagedComponent table. Otherwise the ship uses the components from the ClassComponent table for its class. What I really need is a table that links Ships to ClassComponent (with a check on DamagedComponent) to handle the on/off for individual components.Dratt. Oh well, chalk that one up to not looking into the database.
Steve
Brian
Post by: davidr on March 18, 2011, 06:37:49 AM
In the Population and Production Screen ( Industrial production ) under the drop down menu "construction options" , would it be possible to sub divide the list of Ship Components into the different items various categories - Engines , sensors , weapons etc - instead of having all components in one long list. This would assist in deciding which components to construct.
DavidR
Post by: voknaar on March 19, 2011, 08:34:43 AM
Post by: sloanjh on March 19, 2011, 11:31:56 AM
Modify the population accounting so that more than one race can be present in the same population.
I just did my first genetic engineering gig - I created a low-grav race "Lunies" to colonize the moon (note that I expanded the range of human grav tolerance to +/-0.8 in SM mode to bring lunar gravity within reach). Once I started creating Lunies I ended up with a logistical nightmare in my colony management (ok, it wasn't a nightmare, but the colony management was a LOT more cluttered and error-prone):
1) I already had a lunar colony, but it was for humans. I had to make a new one and kill the old one.
2) Around the same time, I decided to run some colonists to Mars. Unfortunately, I clicked on the wrong Earth colony for pickup, and ended up creating a Lunie population on Mars.
3) I now have multiple Earths on the F2 and F12 screens that I need to be careful choosing between.
4) My Lunies can't work in earth industry once they've been converted; they're a completely separate colony. For example, I had to transfer troops to the Lunie earth to keep unrest down, rather than having the troops stationed in Human earth take care of it.
5) Growth rate for the Lunies on Earth is treated as if the planet is empty, it's much higher than for the humans.
Implementation suggestion: I think there needs to be another level in the world/population structure, call it sub-population, which differentiates on the basis of race. So if I have 990,000 Humans and 10,000 Lunies in a population on a planet, then it should show as 99% Human and 1% Lunie. The Lunie and Human populations would have separately tracked colonization costs (and infrastructure requirements), unrest levels, political status, and growth rates (but growth rate would be mostly determined by the overall population or even world head-count). Infrastructure, mines, etc. would be pooled at the population level.
Now that I think about it, this might just be a (BIG) coding change (as opposed to a DB change). You probably have a table with populationID, raceID, and headcount; if the populationID were non-unique you could simply use different rows with the same populationID as different sub-populations. (You'd have to create queries that summed over all the entries with the same populationID and empireID for things like number of CFs etcs.) This would also make it easy in situations where you conquer another race's colony - you'd simply change the populationID of the conquered population's entries to match the conquerer's populationID on that world.
I'm aware that even without a DB change, this would be a complex change that would probably be buggy for a while due to missed-out spots. It might be more robust to do it as a DB change, introducing a whole new table to manage the sub-populations and leaving the existing tables as aggregators of total population.
John
Post by: sloanjh on March 19, 2011, 11:38:29 AM
I just started producing genetically engineered "Lunies" on Earth. Every 5-day, I now get a "Unrest Increasing"/"Unrest Ruthlessly Suppressed by Ground Forces" pair of messages which interrupt auto-turns. I assume it's coming from "Unrest Increasing", and I'd like to turn it off. Note that I'm in a conventional game and still haven't made it out of Sol, so I'm running 5-day turns, i.e. the interrupt is forcing me into 1-click-per-turn mode.
I think there are two problems with the previous strategy of changing the hard-wired interrupt status of events in the game as people complain:
1) There's always another one, like the one above, that got missed out.
2) Some of these are a "two right answers" situation, where some players (or the same player at different times) will want different interrupt statuses for the same event. The only way to manage this is to provide a default behavior which can be overridden by the player.
John
Post by: Mel Vixen on March 19, 2011, 06:33:30 PM
Post by: UnLimiTeD on March 19, 2011, 07:51:07 PM
Quote
populationAs a start for sooner, wouldn't it be earlier to just allow one colony (population) to use the industry and Ground Forces of another population on the same planet as well?
And have an automatic (Racename) behind a colony in all windows where that isn't obvious, like ship orders?
Post by: Steve Walmsley on March 20, 2011, 07:49:42 AM
This one's for a future release, since it requires a DB change and is fairly major change in mechanics....
Modify the population accounting so that more than one race can be present in the same population.
I just did my first genetic engineering gig - I created a low-grav race "Lunies" to colonize the moon (note that I expanded the range of human grav tolerance to +/-0.8 in SM mode to bring lunar gravity within reach). Once I started creating Lunies I ended up with a logistical nightmare in my colony management (ok, it wasn't a nightmare, but the colony management was a LOT more cluttered and error-prone):
1) I already had a lunar colony, but it was for humans. I had to make a new one and kill the old one.
2) Around the same time, I decided to run some colonists to Mars. Unfortunately, I clicked on the wrong Earth colony for pickup, and ended up creating a Lunie population on Mars.
3) I now have multiple Earths on the F2 and F12 screens that I need to be careful choosing between.
4) My Lunies can't work in earth industry once they've been converted; they're a completely separate colony. For example, I had to transfer troops to the Lunie earth to keep unrest down, rather than having the troops stationed in Human earth take care of it.
5) Growth rate for the Lunies on Earth is treated as if the planet is empty, it's much higher than for the humans.
Implementation suggestion: I think there needs to be another level in the world/population structure, call it sub-population, which differentiates on the basis of race. So if I have 990,000 Humans and 10,000 Lunies in a population on a planet, then it should show as 99% Human and 1% Lunie. The Lunie and Human populations would have separately tracked colonization costs (and infrastructure requirements), unrest levels, political status, and growth rates (but growth rate would be mostly determined by the overall population or even world head-count). Infrastructure, mines, etc. would be pooled at the population level.
Now that I think about it, this might just be a (BIG) coding change (as opposed to a DB change). You probably have a table with populationID, raceID, and headcount; if the populationID were non-unique you could simply use different rows with the same populationID as different sub-populations. (You'd have to create queries that summed over all the entries with the same populationID and empireID for things like number of CFs etcs.) This would also make it easy in situations where you conquer another race's colony - you'd simply change the populationID of the conquered population's entries to match the conquerer's populationID on that world.
I'm aware that even without a DB change, this would be a complex change that would probably be buggy for a while due to missed-out spots. It might be more robust to do it as a DB change, introducing a whole new table to manage the sub-populations and leaving the existing tables as aggregators of total population.
John
This is something I have been thinking about for a while. Also, while I am making population in terms of people separate from industry, I would also try to make populations separate from system bodies, to allow deep space habitats, etc. This is obviously a major change and it is something I was planning to include in Aurora II. However, I seem to be more focused on Aurora I lately. I think in terms of scale of change, this may be up there with the 'Loading into Memory' change to movement and detection but I may take the plunge at some point anyway.
Steve
Post by: sloanjh on March 20, 2011, 10:48:03 AM
This is something I have been thinking about for a while. Also, while I am making population in terms of people separate from industry, I would also try to make populations separate from system bodies, to allow deep space habitats, etc. This is obviously a major change and it is something I was planning to include in Aurora II. However, I seem to be more focused on Aurora I lately. I think in terms of scale of change, this may be up there with the 'Loading into Memory' change to movement and detection but I may take the plunge at some point anyway.
Yep, that's about what I thought the scale would be (although I hadn't put it into the "Loading into Memory" context).
As a stop-gap, I liked UnLimiTed's suggestion of fixing the orders (F12) tab/screen so that the full colony name (including "(race)") shows up it the list of orders that have been given. This would at least give some visual feedback that one had messed up....
John
Post by: davidr on March 20, 2011, 12:00:34 PM
May I reiterate what Nibelung44 proposed on 6.10.10 in that Hull names should be able to be deleted from the drop-down list when designing a ship.
As it is at present the Hull names can be added but then are there "in perpetuity" . Even if one has made a typographical error there is currently no way to remove the entry and also players may wish to use their own designations and not use any of the current names, which cannot be removed.
DavidR
Post by: sloanjh on March 20, 2011, 04:44:26 PM
1) Make them always visible as an attribute of the WP. This is the easy way.
2) Give jump gates a detection signature, and put records in the DB indicating which race has detected which jump gates. This would require a DB change, but it solves the issue of jump gates magically becoming visible once a WP is detected. I realize one could make technobabble to get around this issue, but I think of jump gates as the B5 thingeys (actually, I've started picturing them more as a really big stargate, like in late SG-1) and it seems like a physical structure would have detection characteristics, especially for active sensors.
As an extension of #2, you could have gates and/or regular jumps give off a burst of EM or Thermal radiation when something transits them (proportional to the wormhole size?) which would show up in game mechanics as an instant check for all sensors in the system to see if they detected it....
John
Post by: ardem on March 20, 2011, 04:45:05 PM
Currently missiles explosions behave like a sharp charge, in a very triangle pattern on the side of the armour. Like modern tanks, there are ways of minimizing these missile with reactive armour.
Whereas timed detonated sabot missiles have a armour cap and then a delay in detonation, they bury through the armour, but the explosive force is more thermal so components can be destroyed, but armour is minimally impacted.
My changes for missiles would include 3 styles of missiles Regular, Shaped, Armoured.
Regular missiles can be as they are but a shallower destruction depth to show much of the force is pushed externally due to the nature of explosions against a barrier.
Shaped charged missiles, can be like a triangle but you can add a layer of reactive armour to counter act the effects.
Armoured do very little damage if they do not breach the hull, but if they do, they do a huge amount of component damage, naturally armoured missiles are much heavier so, adding to how many layers of armour, does reduce the explosive force dependant on missile size. It would still be a fine balance and not a one size fits all.
-----------------------------------
Why would this be beneficial, when I find a new class of ship I just do a mass launch of missiles, and pounder the sucker, there is very little gamble in it, but with this style of design, there is a gamble that perhaps you choose the wrong style of missile making it a tougher fight.
Post by: Beersatron on March 20, 2011, 11:00:37 PM
It feels wrong to have a BHQ as the parent to 4 small Companies and the only way to get the Marine Company training is to put them in with an HQ, so when it comes to transporting them you can't really use a special marine transport design or some such.
Post by: sloanjh on March 21, 2011, 01:15:17 AM
Can we have an HQ for the Marine Company since they are a quarter of the size of a standard unit?
It feels wrong to have a BHQ as the parent to 4 small Companies and the only way to get the Marine Company training is to put them in with an HQ, so when it comes to transporting them you can't really use a special marine transport design or some such.
Seconded.
I've had a similar issue in the other direction - construction brigades. I've been using brigade HQ for groups of four and calling them divisions - I'll call the division HQ (when I can spare one) a corps. I figure this is ok, since a construction brigade is acting at the same "level" as a combat battalion in terms of game mechanics. In other words, I prefer what I'm doing with the construction brigades (using a combat brigade HQ to represent a division HQ) to requiring a division HQ for groups of construction brigades. BTW, what would be really nice would be if the (construction) division commander could improve the xeno rating of the units.
John
Post by: ardem on March 21, 2011, 03:34:51 AM
On launch it just opens a system view on your homeworld.
-----
Not sure if everyone playes from the system view as the base system, but since it has all the icons it seems reasonable that is the case.
Yes its only one click of the button or hitting F3 but it would be nice to launch the game into the game rather then finding and fiddling with the tiny menu.
Not a huge request but I am sure its a small amount of coding.
Post by: Erik L on March 21, 2011, 03:35:31 PM
Post by: viperfan7 on March 21, 2011, 06:51:19 PM
http://forum.egosoft.com/viewtopic.php?t=235750
*edit* unmunged url
Post by: Erik L on March 22, 2011, 05:26:27 PM
Post by: Beersatron on March 23, 2011, 12:04:53 AM
1. An increase in the Requested Protection Level, or some factor of unrest that isn't used as an interrupt like overcrowding but could be used for something else?
2. An increase in the Expenditures of the Wealth/Trade tab, a new item called Welfare or something like that.
Currently on Earth I have about 1 in 10 unemployed, I have construction rolling non-stop and also have Mars producing non-stop but it too is now at 1 in 25 unemployed because I can not keep up with the baby makers. I am playing an 'early pacifist' turned 'turtle' (i.e. no rush to explore, went one jump radius out of Sol and found Bad Things so am forting up) so my Humans should really have a lower Annual Growth Rate but I do not think we can change that in the Race Details screen?
Post by: Narmio on March 23, 2011, 08:11:01 PM
Actually, that would be interesting. A fourth employment sector, "Commodity manufacturing" or "Civilian manufacturing" or something. Starts at 0, increases with the size of the colony (in line with the increases in trade goods production). Then you could have that affect trade goods production. If there was lots of trade and available unemployed workers, the size of the commodities sector would increase and you'd get more trade goods. Great for colonies that are just built for economic reasons - no mining or manufacturing installations, so lots of free workers = more trade goods. On the other hand, if there was complete employment in the TN sector, say at a mining colony where every worker was needed for harvesting that delicious Duranium, the Commodities sector would atrophy somewhat, reducing trade goods (not to 0, say to 50% of normal trade goods production for a colony of that pop). Import requirements, obviously, would be unaffected in both cases. If you want to also get exports from that mining colony, though, you'll need to plop down a few extra colonists than are needed for the mines - they can kickstart the non-TN manufacturing sector.
The advantage to an approach like this, over a broad penalty for unemployment, is that it doesn't add another factor that the player must micromanage. If you don't care about maximising trade goods production, you can totally ignore this addition and you'll probably never notice. But if you choose to invest a little extra time micromanaging populations to ensure a healthy civilian manufacturing sector, you'll profit from it. It also gives something for those "I only made this colony because this was a nice world" populations to do, like Mars when you get a bad roll on the mineral tables.
Post by: Beersatron on March 23, 2011, 10:18:14 PM
Post by: Beersatron on March 23, 2011, 11:08:12 PM
i.e. you have a Destroyer Squadron with 10 launchers and 200 missiles, so let them fire a few rounds off and take their mags down to about 80% capacity and that way they get a better feel of things.
Harder to do for other weapons systems since the bonus would be applied for no deficit to stocks since it would be firing off energy - unless you slightly increased the rate of 'wear and tear' on the ship?
I know you could just abstract the above into the whole act of Task Force Training but it would be nice to see another effect of it, as well as the burning of fueling and the increasing of the clock.
Post by: Mel Vixen on March 24, 2011, 07:35:51 AM
Post by: davidr on March 24, 2011, 07:39:32 AM
Post by: Deutschbag on March 24, 2011, 08:19:35 AM
Post by: Shadow on March 24, 2011, 11:27:50 PM
Another randomness issue lies with civilian mining colonies, which, personally, I barely ever see. I believe they should be considerably more common or linked to a user setting like the aforementioned one about general galaxy richness.
Finally, the fact that jump drives are ineffective at aiding ships above the tender's tonnage but within the drive's allowance is particularly counterintuitive. I'd suggest that, if no fundamental change is possible/desirable, the game should warn the player if they're installing larger jump drive capability on a smaller ship. Like a message on the small box that tells you the design doesn't have enough crew space, among other things.
EDIT: Oh, another one: either Railgun Launch Velocity or a new specific tech should improve the speed of mineral packets, and at the same time, increase the damage a given packet would cause if the target body has no mass driver to receive it.
EDIT2: One more! Add the ability to rename (or auto-rename) civilian shipping lines. I hate the Mcphatter line. :-\
Post by: alexwallis on March 25, 2011, 03:13:12 PM
an idea I had tonight when trying to assign officers, at the moment if you are reading the screen with a screen reader, it can be quite cluttered particularly if you are trying to read bonuses for people.
So my suggestion is, could an option be added as a preference to enable or disable,
that when you click an officer to display his or her bonuses, instead of just being shown in the officer window, they could pop up in a message box separate from the officers window itself, that way it would make reading them a lot easier.
I talked to zack about this, and he liked the idea as well.
I totally understand if you don't like this idea, and it is your game after all.
But just thought I would suggest it.
Post by: Erik L on March 25, 2011, 03:18:52 PM
EDIT2: One more! Add the ability to rename (or auto-rename) civilian shipping lines. I hate the Mcphatter line. :-\
Gotta get the Mcminerals to the Mcpeople!
Post by: Rastaman on March 26, 2011, 06:47:41 AM
My shipping lines have so many ships that they utterly dominate the solar system and it's difficult to see anything else because of long lists of ship names. Granted this is a learning game where I have only expanded to one other system after 150 years, with Mars having over a billion inhabitants. The ships might spread out when I expand, but still.
Post by: welchbloke on March 26, 2011, 08:25:23 AM
An option for the map to switch off the display of civilian fleets/ships, while retaining display of player controlled ships.There is already an option for this. On the F3 screen select the Contacts tab. There is a contact filter drop down selection, select No Civilians - Hey presto all those annoying civilian contacts disappear :)
My shipping lines have so many ships that they utterly dominate the solar system and it's difficult to see anything else because of long lists of ship names. Granted this is a learning game where I have only expanded to one other system after 150 years, with Mars having over a billion inhabitants. The ships might spread out when I expand, but still.
Post by: Rastaman on March 26, 2011, 08:41:39 AM
There is already an option for this. On the F3 screen select the Contacts tab. There is a contact filter drop down selection, select No Civilians - Hey presto all those annoying civilian contacts disappear :)
Awesome, thanks!
New suggestion: Declutter the map controls so that you notice such things while tired in the middle of the night! ;D
Post by: bean on March 26, 2011, 01:37:34 PM
Ships would probably be about lcs .95, with fighters and missiles somewhat higher. Cost for ships should be the current for probably about #4.
For those who are confused by what lcs means, it's what factor the last unit will be cheaper than the current if you double the number. (2 is .95x the cost of 1, 4 is .95x the cost of 2, etc.)
Post by: Shadow on March 26, 2011, 04:38:31 PM
Post by: Elouda on March 26, 2011, 04:46:50 PM
Another tiny thing: rename military academies to just academies or universities. The current term is misleading, since such buildings train not only naval and army officers, but also scientists and civilian administrators.
Alternatively, seperate them into different buildings, each at half the current price. This would allow players a better measure of control in terms of what they want - rather than build MA's and hope they spawn a scientist, I can build a University and hope they do so, but atleast Id know the chances were better... 8)
Post by: Shadow on March 26, 2011, 04:58:13 PM
Alternatively, seperate them into different buildings, each at half the current price. This would allow players a better measure of control in terms of what they want - rather than build MA's and hope they spawn a scientist, I can build a University and hope they do so, but atleast Id know the chances were better... 8)
Hmm, that's true. I like it. :)
Post by: ShadoCat on March 27, 2011, 11:57:35 AM
Finally, the fact that jump drives are ineffective at aiding ships above the tender's tonnage but within the drive's allowance is particularly counterintuitive. I'd suggest that, if no fundamental change is possible/desirable, the game should warn the player if they're installing larger jump drive capability on a smaller ship. Like a message on the small box that tells you the design doesn't have enough crew space, among other things.
There was a discussion about this a while ago.
The main reason for the current system is that Steve wanted to keep the cost of jump ships relatively high. He didn't like the idea of guppies jumping whales into a system.
That would almost eliminate the cost of JGs for combat purposes. The current decision is: how many combat ships get reduced combat capability in order to get the group into the enemy system. Also, since the jump ship is a major investment, you want to protect it. With small jump tenders, the tender becomes cheaper and may be considered expendables.
Quote
EDIT: Oh, another one: either Railgun Launch Velocity or a new specific tech should improve the speed of mineral packets, and at the same time, increase the damage a given packet would cause if the target body has no mass driver to receive it.
That sounds good but do you assume that the increases somehow automatically happen to existing mass drivers (software upgrade) or do you create a whole new line of Mass Driver [tech level] when no other installations have that mechanic?
Neither one really passes the giggle test for me. Of course, having a mass driver catch packets is a game play hand wave. So one more might not be too terrible.
Quote
EDIT2: One more! Add the ability to rename (or auto-rename) civilian shipping lines. I hate the Mcphatter line. :-\
Heh.
Post by: Shadow on March 27, 2011, 12:19:39 PM
There was a discussion about this a while ago.
The main reason for the current system is that Steve wanted to keep the cost of jump ships relatively high. He didn't like the idea of guppies jumping whales into a system.
That would almost eliminate the cost of JGs for combat purposes. The current decision is: how many combat ships get reduced combat capability in order to get the group into the enemy system. Also, since the jump ship is a major investment, you want to protect it. With small jump tenders, the tender becomes cheaper and may be considered expendables.
I see, and I understand the balance reasons. But as I said, if it's going to stay that way, the player should be warned about it since it's not something anyone expects. A simple message or tooltip somewhere in the Ship Design view would be enough.
That sounds good but do you assume that the increases somehow automatically happen to existing mass drivers (software upgrade) or do you create a whole new line of Mass Driver [tech level] when no other installations have that mechanic?
I do assume the former. Many buildings have upgrades that are automatically applied once researched and don't require physical refits. Mines, construction factories, research labs and fuel refineries, to name a few. Similar mass driver upgrades wouldn't be disruptive to the norm.
Post by: Teiwaz on March 27, 2011, 05:40:25 PM
1. Mineral transport civilian contracts. Mass drivers make intra-system supply chains nice and easy, but things get tougher when there's a jump[ involved, even if there's a gate. It would be nice if I could just get the civies to do the ore hauling form my outsystem mining colony. (And it would increase efficiency in common cases such as when your mining colony is importing infrastructure or mines. Civvie freighters pull in with mines, drop them off, and load up with ore to take back to where the mines are made. )
2. Separate "sending" mass drivers from "receiving" mass drivers. (Later is a grav brake or something?) Right now, it's a little too easy to accidentally have civilians ship the mass driver you want to use to catch mineral packages out to some distant rock to where it's used to inadvertently slaughter your population. (I avoid contracts for mass drivers alltogether because of this. But think how easy it would be to just have your geosurvey ground team set up a contract for 3 mass drivers and 50 automated mines, and then it's off to the next rock?) It doesn't really make a whole lot of sense that a giant cannon is used to catch incoming packages anyway, right?
3. "Surpluss" export contracts. Instead of "supplying x y" have a contract option to "supply all x greater than y. " So, for instance, I could reserve 200k tons of Duranium for further development of my mining colony, but let the civilians know that any Duranium in excess of that can be shipped offworld to where you need it.
4. Not sure what this would be called, but the inverse of 3. Have it so that you can set up a contract so that civilians will import X if the colony has less than Y of it. This would let you have civilians maintain stocks of ordinance, maintenance supplies, fuel, etc. at your fleet bases automatically.
Post by: Thiosk on March 28, 2011, 12:57:11 AM
There may be a way to automate mining fleets, but i'm not aware of it. I would like to see a fleet of miners have the capacity to move to a mineral source, as they now can, mine it out, then execute commands such as "load all minerals, move to next source."
Or perhaps, move to mineral source, make it a colony, drop mass driver, set target to default target, mine source, load driver, uncolony, move to next mineral source.
Post by: Narmio on March 28, 2011, 02:08:34 AM
Now that i've mined out the most delicious asteroids, my fleet of asteroid miners are just hopping from rock to rock and mining it out.Probably the easiest suggestion to achieve the mining part of what you're after is a Condition "Minerals at this colony exhausted" and a Conditional Order "Move to nearest source of TN Minerals". It would probably require you to create the colonies first, though.
There may be a way to automate mining fleets, but i'm not aware of it. I would like to see a fleet of miners have the capacity to move to a mineral source, as they now can, mine it out, then execute commands such as "load all minerals, move to next source."
Or perhaps, move to mineral source, make it a colony, drop mass driver, set target to default target, mine source, load driver, uncolony, move to next mineral source.
The thing with mass drivers/cargo holds is tougher, but could be done similarly, I think. You'd need a "load minerals at nearest colony" order and an "unload at nearest colony", only there'd need to be some way to distinguish proper colonies that are supposed to have minerals from barren rocks that have been extracted and had the juicy mins left there in a neat pile. A bit messy.
I think it'd be better to have a way to contract civilians to haul minerals - like what Teiwaz suggested. If you set a "stockpile limit" the same way you can currently set a Reserve Level, then any mins at a colony in excess of that will be picked up by civilian freight and taken to the nearest designated demand for that mineral. Then you just set stockpile limits at 0 on a whole bunch of asteroids, and as soon as your roaming Conditional Order driven miners extract something a civilian hauler comes along and scoops it up.
The problem then is how the civilian orders work - ideally you want them to keep scooping up minerals until they're full instead of grabbing a few duranium off one rock, then travelling all the way back to Earth, then going all the way back out... But trying to intelligently guide that kind of behaviour is a sort of tricky problem. In fact, it's been recognised as one of the trickiest problems known to computer science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travelling_salesman_problem)!
Post by: Thiosk on March 28, 2011, 02:45:37 AM
Even better: build a HUGE asteroid mining station, then tow the asteroids to it for processing!
Next suggestion.
i havn't tech'd up my geo sensors yet, but I'd love for high-tech geosurvey vessels to have the teams on them. Queue them up to go to fly to X number of planets in system, flying from rock to rock as they finish geosurvey reports.
The tech level of the geosurvey scanner could be synergistic with the team, speeding the time to complete the team survey, rather than the rating.
Post by: EarthquakeDamage on March 29, 2011, 12:23:10 AM
Next suggestion.
i havn't tech'd up my geo sensors yet, but I'd love for high-tech geosurvey vessels to have the teams on them. Queue them up to go to fly to X number of planets in system, flying from rock to rock as they finish geosurvey reports.
I'd very much like some means of automating survey teams. It's painfully tedious to fully survey every moon and asteroid in the Sol system, let alone the thousands you find in other systems.
---
On a different note, the overall UI needs work. Here are a few more suggestions:
- Context menus. The system and IIRC galaxy maps both have context menus with assorted commands/shortcuts. Most screens do not.
- Lists should not scroll back to the top when refreshed. This was done for the Ground Unit list (Population/Economics screen) some time back, and it's a huge improvement. A good example of a list needing such a change: The system body screen (F9). Whenever you add a colony via that screen and the list refreshes, it scrolls back to the top. This can be frustrating when performing mass geo team surveys, setting up sensor outposts, or whatever.
- We should be able to select multiple items in some/most lists.
When you have a lot of ground units, the list refresh is very slow. If you're trying to organize new units into brigades and divisions, this delay can be frustrating. If we could assign HQs to multiple units at once, it'd help enormously.
When giving orders to task groups, some orders (e.g. load/unload ground unit) bring up a list of target units. We should be able to select multiple units (and not just a single HQ structure, which is already possible with the checkbox).
Side note: In the same list where we select ground units for (un)loading, we should be able to give the order by double-clicking the unit. At the moment, we have to click the Add Order button.
Post by: alanwebber on March 29, 2011, 10:06:29 AM
What about a system of establishing a ceasefire / armistice if a war has been going on for some time without the need to go to a final solution (obviously you need to have communications). This could occur if one side was getting beaten and felt there was no point continuing.
Alan
Post by: Shadow on March 29, 2011, 10:38:37 PM
Post by: Shadow on March 31, 2011, 09:27:32 AM
What I have in mind is a series that improves the health of officers (less likelihood to develop medical problems), one that gradually improves officer lifespan (and therefore mandatory retirement age) and a series of fertility techs that improve racial population growth. The lifespan tech could be something like the Honorverse's prolong: each breakthrough could only be applied to fairly young officers. Could either be a normal progression of small bumps, or better yet, larger, much more RP-intensive technologies with much more marked effects, like 50-year jumps. Up to a total lifespan of maybe 200-250 by the Photonic Age.
Post by: EarthquakeDamage on March 31, 2011, 03:29:18 PM
More technologies in the Biology/Genetics category!
What I have in mind is a series that improves the health of officers (less likelihood to develop medical problems), one that gradually improves officer lifespan (and therefore mandatory retirement age) and a series of fertility techs that improve racial population growth. The lifespan tech could be something like the Honorverse's prolong: each breakthrough could only be applied to fairly young officers. Could either be a normal progression of small bumps, or better yet, larger, much more RP-intensive technologies with much more marked effects, like 50-year jumps. Up to a total lifespan of maybe 200-250 by the Photonic Age.
Perhaps each species could have a lifespan multiplier, with long-lived races balanced by low population growth. There could be a new tech line for creating subspecies that trades lifespan for growth or viceversa, so you could create a long-lived caste for officers and a short-lived one for colonies you want to grow quickly.
Post by: Shadow on March 31, 2011, 03:39:32 PM
Post by: Rastaman on March 31, 2011, 03:45:43 PM
I'm in the process to design a supertanker kind of ship that transports fuel between colonies. It's about 250 000 tons and can carry 200 000 000 liters. It needs 12000 crew members for the the fuel tank alone! 12000 people for 200 000 m3 come on. Oil tankers in RL with similar weight probably have only a couple of people who check on the cargo.
A similar sized cargo hold (200 000 in game tons) has a couple of hundred crew, still a lot.
Post by: EarthquakeDamage on March 31, 2011, 03:49:54 PM
I'm not sure an increase in lifespan would be balanced (or even logically followed) by a sensible decrease in population growth. A decrease in births would be offset by the decrease in mortality. You would have to really lower births, which I can't find a plausible reason for, to have a real effect on growth.
In genetically engineered species, maybe not. Evolved species, however, tend to have a negative relationship between lifespan and reproduction rate. Compare rodents and insects to humans and IIRC various tortoises. I imagine the primary difference is the age of maturity versus total lifespan.
Such a trade-off still makes sense from a game balance perspective. All else being equal, an increase in longevity would increase population since death is delayed even if the birth rate is unchanged.
Post by: Rastaman on March 31, 2011, 03:55:24 PM
I'm not sure an increase in lifespan would be balanced (or even logically followed) by a sensible decrease in population growth. A decrease in births would be offset by the decrease in mortality. You would have to really lower births, which I can't find a plausible reason for, to have a real effect on growth.
Growth could also be made dependent on general prosperity, where high per capita income means less growth. Cloning is another issue.
Post by: Shadow on March 31, 2011, 04:12:04 PM
Such a trade-off still makes sense from a game balance perspective. All else being equal, an increase in longevity would increase population since death is delayed even if the birth rate is unchanged.
You're right about that. It would double the benefit of an increased lifespan and make hypothetical fertility techs redundant or excessively effective. However, if the mechanical effect of a longevity tech is merely the gradual postponing of the mandatory retirement age (and likely drawing out the chances of medical problems, modified by potential medical techs), the problem would sort itself out: population growth would be left untouched.
Post by: UnLimiTeD on March 31, 2011, 04:21:13 PM
It logically goes down as life span increases, as an intelligent being is seemingly not more likely to produce more offspring if it lives for longer.
Thus, while total population goes up as more people live at the same time, effective growth rate would actually go down because it is the same absolute growth, being a percentage of a larger population, and stretched over a longer time frame.
In addition, looking at the negative growth rates in modern industrialized nations like japan, germany, etc, medical improvement and general prosperity seems to result in lowered growth rates in absence of measurable religious influences.
From a pure gameplay perspective, a lower growth is absolutely reasonable, for the aforementioned reasons, and because a longer childhood means it takes longer for new members of society to reproduce.
But if we go that far, we should do it for real, also including various traits that have effects on the population, to actually allow people to customize a bit.
Though, this opens the next can of worms, which I'm not sure should be priority.
An insect population, for example, would have extremely high populations, with high growth rates, and a lowered production and research, where the production is kept up by numbers. This would require them to have more workers per installation, and mean more deaths in the case of a nuclear exchange.
Post by: Shadow on March 31, 2011, 04:45:24 PM
Post by: jseah on March 31, 2011, 07:11:05 PM
Less than 25m population:
- Toggle to automatically set the colony as source of colonists when population > 25m
Purchase minerals with excess:
- Toggles purchase of civilian minerals when above/below a specified wealth number (buy when above, don't buy when below)
Customizable auto-turn interrupts:
- Have certain events be ignorable (as an option) in auto-turn
- Ones I find most irritating:
New naval / ground forces officer (I have tons of them, telling me I got a new officer is only useful for admin and research)
Unrest decreasing (I've solved the problem, or it went away, all's fine and I don't need to stop)
EDIT: Team skill increase is also irritating
- The new minimum increment function doesn't help much as I don't want to ignore things like research complete
And here's three not an automation order but a workaround for one. (can't expect the game to manage your infrastructure for you)
Sell infrastructure:
- Only available on 0 colony cost planets with >0 infrastructure
- Click to give infrastructure to civilian sector (you get nothing since you earn the wealth when they ship it off planet, which simulates market demand, besides turning duranium into wealth sounds like a losing cause)
Civilian colonist shipping will not transport more colonists to a planet than infrastructure can support:
- Might need to add a value "incoming colonists" to planets to track this
Civilian cargo shipping will not send more freighters to a planet than needed to complete a request:
- Very irritating when my infrastructure trade collapses as I place orders for facilities to be moved as they are produced and the whole civilian fleet jumps back and forth between my planets chasing an order 1 freighter could have fulfilled.
Perhaps I'm too nitpicky about efficiency but I tend to run things on a knife-edged balance and having your empire go into debt because of a certain trade failing (not to mention the loss in population growth) is slightly irritating.
Post by: EarthquakeDamage on March 31, 2011, 09:32:03 PM
Just a few automation orders which I would find extremely useful:
Less than 25m population:
- Toggle to automatically set the colony as source of colonists when population > 25m
...
And here's three not an automation order but a workaround for one. (can't expect the game to manage your infrastructure for you)
Sell infrastructure:
- Only available on 0 colony cost planets with >0 infrastructure
- Click to give infrastructure to civilian sector (you get nothing since you earn the wealth when they ship it off planet, which simulates market demand, besides turning duranium into wealth sounds like a losing cause)
I think these could be handled by more general quotas/target values. We could establish target values for population/installations/minerals, above and below which civilians will export and import respectively. Maybe mass drivers could be a little smarter to help meet in-system mineral quotas.
While I'm on the subject of target values, terraforming can and does overshoot the endpoint. This is not usually a problem, though it can be if you need precision (e.g. setting the temperature of hot planets like Venus to accommodate one or more races) and have a monstrous number of terraformers.
May as well throw in a few more suggestions:
- We should be able to automate governor and task force commander assignments. As is, it's easy for months to go by without realizing one of your governors or the TF commander died. Besides, we can already automate assignments for individual ships and the TF commander's underlings (Ops, Logistics, &c).
For governors, perhaps we could select the traits we consider important for a given planet/sector using checkboxes. Want high population growth and factory output? Select those two boxes and it'll assign the available candidate with the best combination of growth, factory, and political (it's already used for promotions, and it makes sense to use it here) bonuses. - Any event type we've set to ignore (so it doesn't show up when we view the events list) should probably not cause interrupts. There could be a 3-way toggle for this: Show, Don't Show, Don't Show and Don't Interrupt. Or maybe a 4-way toggle, with all possible combinations of "Show" and "Interrupt".
Post by: UnLimiTeD on April 01, 2011, 06:50:25 AM
Less (or no) crew requirements for fuel storage and cargo space.How about a Civilian Fuel tank?^^
Post by: Shadow on April 01, 2011, 08:32:15 AM
Post by: schroeam on April 01, 2011, 09:38:02 AM
A ground forces suggestion:I would like to second this. We have Colonels for battalions, Brigadiers for Brigades, Major Generals for Divisions, and Lieutenant Generals for... They would fit in well as either Army or Corps commanders based on a TF style organization.
How about creating a task force structure for ground forces? Just like task groups can be assigned to task forces and benefit from their assigned staff officers, divisions could be assigned to higher formations (Armies or Corps dependant upon your preference). I know Steve has shifted focus to Aurora II so this could be a suggestion for that as well.
I would also like to suggest somehow allowing one TF to be assigned to another TF, thereby creating a true Chain of Command. Each superior TF would have the same effect on the junior TF as they would on any TG under their direct command.
Just a thought I've been chasing around my head for a couple months.
Adam.
Post by: Shadow on April 01, 2011, 09:47:44 AM
Post by: Narmio on April 01, 2011, 08:41:09 PM
Fuel storage is already a non-military module. Plus I don't think a somehow more commercial tank would necessarily need less crew than the standard one.If refueling took actual time then it would be possible to create a rapid refueling tank with the current crew cost and a slow refueling tank with significantly less.
Actually it'd be easier if the crew cost was lowered, refuel time was added to all tanks and a new module named something like "Rapid refueling system" was added. It would act just like a cargo handling system but for fuel. You have a base rate of, say, 10,000l/hr, but each 1HS Rapid Refuel increased that significantly. You could also have a Hangar Refueling System that acted like extra Rapid Refuels on ships in your hangar bays, so that you wouldn't have to add anything to fighters, which don't really have the space. When doing in-space fuel transfer you could either average the Rapid Refuel units of both ships or use the lowest, depending on how difficult you wanted things to be.
This would lower the crew cost of storing large amounts of fuel so long as you didn't need to rapidly refuel or transfer. And since refueling rate is a constant, not a percentage, you'd need to same number of Refuelling Systems on a 12kton tanker like I use as on one of the ridiculously massive ones mentioned in this thread. So the crew cost would be lower for a really huge fuel ship even with this system.
Post by: Shadow on April 02, 2011, 09:48:11 AM
Now for a more important suggestion, at least in the macro scale...
Civilian Shipping Axis
I've been having some problems (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,3423.0.html) with the private sector lately, possibly caused by some contract that had civilian freighters deliver infrastructure and facilities to a frontier colony 4 jumps away from Sol. That's coincidentally the limit of their pathing ability, so it might be related to the central issue. That is, that those freighters aren't too intent on returning to Sol to fulfill other supply-demand contracts. Instead, they prefer to carry out mostly empty trade trips between that colony 4 jumps away and one that's 3 jumps away.
I've experimented a bit, and since clearing orders doesn't seem to work, it seems the way to get them to return to the solar planets is via contracts that have their supply end near their current location, and their demand end in or near Sol. Problem is the outer colonies are naturally much less developed, so there isn't anything that can help migrate several dozens of freighters back home (like thousands of infrastructure units). Sure, I can SM the necessary items, but I shouldn't need to resort to that.
So my suggestion is what I'd call a Civilian Shipping Axis, which would be a user-designated star system towards which all civilian vessels would gravitate when they aren't transporting contract items. The axis would be Sol (or the race's home system) by default, but could be moved if the centre of your empire moves. Freighters would still trade in their free time, but prefer to generally stay close to the axis, so they could respond to contracts within 3-4 jumps of it.
Post by: Rastaman on April 02, 2011, 10:58:19 AM
Yes, refuelling, resupplying and reloading ordnance shouldn't be instantaneous. Maybe not as time-consuming as cargo loading/unloading (we shouldn't be forced to install cargo handling systems on warships!), but still. I remember engaging a speedy Precursor vessel which managed to reload its whole missile supply twice before I could keep it in range long enough for my missiles to reach it.
A military harbor installation like the commercial spaceport that speeds up loading. The maintenance installation can have this functionality. So on planets with a maintenance base = fast refueling, out in the boonies = slow refueling. There can be a fuel/ammo/ loading ship technology, but it should only be necessary for the tanker/collier/supply ships.
Post by: davidr on April 02, 2011, 01:23:25 PM
DavidR
Post by: Brian Neumann on April 03, 2011, 08:11:06 AM
Thanks
Brian
Post by: Shadow on April 03, 2011, 09:06:06 AM
Troop ships and supply ships, both military-related support vessels, can be commercial. So why can't colliers be like them?
Post by: Narmio on April 03, 2011, 09:31:56 AM
Magazines probably shouldn't make a ship military. After all, without a launcher, they're just missile cargo space.If this is something Steve wants to keep - making colliers need to be military vessels and thus keep missile logistics more difficult - then maybe a way to "package" bunches of missiles as cargo? A very cheap construction task that takes a fixed amount of missiles and produces a normal cargo good that can then be loaded and transported in a hold. The disadvantage is that it would take another (also very cheap) construction task to turn them back into missiles.
Troop ships and supply ships, both military-related support vessels, can be commercial. So why can't colliers be like them?
So within your empire moving missiles becomes very easy. You make them, package them up, then move them around between colonies. You could even contract civvies to move them. The construction costs should be very, very cheap so all you'd need at a remote ammo dump would be a single construction facility or engineer brigade in order to unpack. But supplying fleets would still be complicated - you'd need a colony with at least some construction capability in order to use this system, although forward ammo dumps would be easier to set up.
Post by: sloanjh on April 03, 2011, 09:48:28 AM
If this is something Steve wants to keep - making colliers need to be military vessels and thus keep missile logistics more difficult - then maybe a way to "package" bunches of missiles as cargo? A very cheap construction task that takes a fixed amount of missiles and produces a normal cargo good that can then be loaded and transported in a hold. The disadvantage is that it would take another (also very cheap) construction task to turn them back into missiles.
So within your empire moving missiles becomes very easy. You make them, package them up, then move them around between colonies. You could even contract civvies to move them. The construction costs should be very, very cheap so all you'd need at a remote ammo dump would be a single construction facility or engineer brigade in order to unpack. But supplying fleets would still be complicated - you'd need a colony with at least some construction capability in order to use this system, although forward ammo dumps would be easier to set up.
I like this idea.
John
PS - In Starfire, this suggestion was actually in the rules for fighters - it's called "crating". Funny how convergent evolution works :-)
Post by: Shadow on April 03, 2011, 11:24:56 AM
The "crating" idea isn't that bad, but it seems like a needless complication for missiles. As far as I know, unlike fighters (Starfire's case), missiles needn't be disassembled for transport. Modern supply ships in real life can reload magazines at sea (though obviously not in the middle of combat), so it doesn't make sense to have our space warships require a whole forward base simply to replenish their stores. Given how artificial it feels, doing that for "gameplay reasons" would strain plausibility from my point of view.
Post by: Shadow on April 04, 2011, 11:36:18 PM
Spinal Mounts
Applicable weapons: Pre-designed Lasers, Particle Beams, Railguns
Spinal Mount Size vs Damage
- Spinal Mount 2x Size / 2x Damage
- Spinal Mount 4x Size / 4x Damage
- Spinal Mount 6x Size / 6x Damage
- Spinal Mount 8x Size / 8x Damage
Spinal Mount Size vs Reload Rate
- Normal Size / Normal Reload
- Spinal Mount 2x Size / 75% Reload
- Spinal Mount 3x Size / 50% Reload
- Spinal Mount 4x Size / 25% Reload
- Range remains untouched.
- Crew scales with the total size of the mount, using the original weapon's figure as a base.
- Total power requirement scales with the damage setting. Power recharge per 5 secs naturally scales with that and according to the reload rate setting.
- HTK would scale with the mount's size or damage to some extent, I guess.
- I'd say final cost scales with the total size, but I don't know how that works.
- The Spinal Mount base tech and settings may be individual, separate research projects, like Fire Control Tracking Speed, Missile Launcher Sizes, etc.
So it'd go something like this...
Base weapon
30cm Railgun V6/C8
Damage Per Shot (4): 7 Rate of Fire: 15 seconds Range Modifier: 6
Max Range 420,000 km Railgun Size: 9 HS Railgun HTK: 4
Power Requirement: 21 Power Recharge per 5 Secs: 8
Cost: 219 Crew: 90
Spinal mount (maxed damage, minimal reload)
240cm Spinal Railgun X8-R25
Damage Per Shot (4): 56 Rate of Fire: 30 seconds Range Modifier: 6
Max Range 420,000 km Railgun Size: 288 HS Railgun HTK: 32
Power Requirement: 168 Power Recharge per 5 Secs: 28
Cost: 7008? Crew: 2880
Am I too insane? :-X
Post by: UnLimiTeD on April 05, 2011, 04:25:46 PM
The balance problem with your proposal is that it allows not only for damage by more size, but due to how Aurora calculates the damage, it will also result in a lot deeper armor penetration, which is what right now the weapon pays for in lower DPS.
It would be easier to just allow for higher weapon calibers, and make those techs cheaper, then add a new tech line that slowly decreases the effect of size to reload, thats way easier to implement.
Post by: Thiosk on April 06, 2011, 03:52:08 AM
Post by: EarthquakeDamage on April 06, 2011, 01:09:33 PM
It'd also be nice if the Min Inc box were available on the Population/Production screen.
Also, you should find a different way of changing the theme for the Galactic and System maps. They still stick occasionally, and not just when the program crashes. I hate having to redo my Windows theme settings after playing.
Post by: Shadow on April 06, 2011, 01:19:14 PM
Also, you should find a different way of changing the theme for the Galactic and System maps. They still stick occasionally, and not just when the program crashes. I hate having to redo my Windows theme settings after playing.
Yes, that's been annoying me as well ever since I started playing back in 4.9x.
Post by: voknaar on April 07, 2011, 04:31:44 AM
A base of 5 days then damage control rating subtracts that time and perhaps a flat 100 supplys per armor covering.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_suit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_suit)
In my mind I still think EVA is still nessesary as part of maintaining ship and for maintinence when things do eventually break down. Theres sensors, escape pod hatches, possible windows, ship enterences, supply/cargo/hanger bay doors etc. So field re-armoring while impractacle should be possible in my humble opinion.
Post by: ZimRathbone on April 07, 2011, 06:17:49 AM
Quote
Also, you should find a different way of changing the theme for the Galactic and System maps. They still stick occasionally, and not just when the program crashes. I hate having to redo my Windows theme settings after playing.Yes, that's been annoying me as well ever since I started playing back in 4.9x.
Regrettably this is due to a VB6 bug rather than Aurora per se.
soln 1 get Microsoft to fix it (good luck with that one)
soln 2 rewrite Aurora in a more modern dev environment (see Aurora II)
Post by: Shadow on April 07, 2011, 08:41:48 PM
Anyway, please, I'd like the ability to customize an alien race's portrait and flag, even if it requires SM mode. I'm finding myself manually swapping flag and race files to get proper combinations sometimes.
Post by: sloanjh on April 07, 2011, 08:48:13 PM
The "Population Locations" panel of F2 can rapidly fill up. Putting in a filter that allows you to pick only populations in a particular system can help in finding a particular population.
John
Post by: Thiosk on April 07, 2011, 10:51:44 PM
I just roleplay like I'm in the Warhammer 40k universe, I'm the god emperor, and humanity need fear the alien no longer.
As such, nonhuman species are right out for roleplaying purposes. They must be eliminated, as per the orbital bombardment thread.
I would like to use ground forces to directly attack populations. I do not mind collateral damage to development. Terrible collateral damage and losses.
Post by: jseah on April 08, 2011, 09:53:57 AM
In the ship components section of production, have the ability to build a "package" of components based on a class design. Rather than flip between the Design window and the Economics window or memorizing the components needed.
All design names with components buildable by construction factories will show up as one item, eg. "DD Ettin components", in addition to the individual components we have now.
DD Ettin components, when finished as one construction item, will then add to your stockpile all the components for building the ship.
Post by: welchbloke on April 08, 2011, 10:04:59 AM
Here's another one for convienience:I like this idea, it would cut down on micro-management.
In the ship components section of production, have the ability to build a "package" of components based on a class design. Rather than flip between the Design window and the Economics window or memorizing the components needed.
All design names with components buildable by construction factories will show up as one item, eg. "DD Ettin components", in addition to the individual components we have now.
DD Ettin components, when finished as one construction item, will then add to your stockpile all the components for building the ship.
Post by: jseah on April 08, 2011, 10:15:05 AM
Can we have the ability to un-modify species? I know GMed species aren't allowed to have modifications but perhaps there should be the ability to convert between the species and any of it's derivatives.
So a modified population should be able to convert back to unmodified or convert to any other modified version of the same species.
Post by: sloanjh on April 08, 2011, 02:19:39 PM
Here's another one for convienience:(Emphatically) Thirded.
In the ship components section of production, have the ability to build a "package" of components based on a class design. Rather than flip between the Design window and the Economics window or memorizing the components needed.
All design names with components buildable by construction factories will show up as one item, eg. "DD Ettin components", in addition to the individual components we have now.
DD Ettin components, when finished as one construction item, will then add to your stockpile all the components for building the ship.
John
Post by: Shadow on April 08, 2011, 02:44:24 PM
Post by: Shadow on April 08, 2011, 10:25:15 PM
I can understand energy beams/particles dissipating due to the atmosphere's resistance. However, that makes a lot less sense for kinetic projectiles. There's at least one serious real life concept (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment#Project_Thor), and the presence of kinetic bombardment in many hard science fiction stories is enough evidence that it's at least scientifically plausible.
Off the top of my head, a kinetic projectile used in orbital bombardment would be a solid, aerodynamic, dense metal slug coated in a heat-resistant material, and would only take a moment to lance through the atmosphere. The average meteorite's burned by the atmosphere, but that's because it's just a chunk of rock and not specifically designed ordnance.
Maybe really thick atmospheres (3+ atm) would impair the performance of kinetic rounds. However, such friction in general should be a lot less of a problem for them than it is for largely immaterial energy.
Post by: Thiosk on April 09, 2011, 12:04:43 AM
A "silver bullet" style round, styled after the commonly used anti-tank armor-penetrating rounds we see today, would certainly penetrate the atmosphere and hit the ground. Damaging things if it hit them of course. This is how i'd imagine railguns to work on planets. *plink plink plink* I wouldn't expect them to be effective for saturation bombing.
Why not just allow an offensive mass driver? Mass packets penetrate the atmosphere with no problem, killing millions and destroying infrastructure-- and those aren't even guided. Talk about low-cost weapons of interstellar terror.
A crust-puncturing type kinetic impact is a fairly low-tech orbital bombardment solution as well. Find a suitable orbiting 'roid, hook some rockets to it, and sling it into pretty-much anywhere. Make a whole bunch of poisonous gas, depending on the tectonics and internal structure of the planet. Good thing we can't move roids currently, because that would be *fun*
Post by: Erik L on April 09, 2011, 03:01:16 AM
Why not just allow an offensive mass driver? Mass packets penetrate the atmosphere with no problem, killing millions and destroying infrastructure-- and those aren't even guided. Talk about low-cost weapons of interstellar terror.Mass drivers already do that. As long as the "recipient" doesn't have any of their own.
Post by: Father Tim on April 09, 2011, 08:55:50 AM
Off the top of my head, a kinetic projectile used in orbital bombardment would be a solid, aerodynamic, dense metal slug coated in a heat-resistant material, and would only take a moment to lance through the atmosphere. The average meteorite's burned by the atmosphere, but that's because it's just a chunk of rock and not specifically designed ordnance.
Right there, you've answered your own question - because kinetic projectiles used in space combat are NOT aerodynamic cores coated in heat-resistant material, they're steel marbles.
So Gauss Cannons & Railguns don't work for orbital bombardment through atmosphere because they don't currently carry/use "specifically designed ordinance."
Post by: Shadow on April 09, 2011, 10:23:36 AM
What kind of kinetic weapons are we talking here? Building destroying? City-sized crater-making? Or crust-puncturing-apocalyptic?
Mainly railguns. As I just posted on the Bay 12 forums, you'd use missiles to exterminate population, but kinetic weapons for precise strikes*. You could use the latter against populations, but it'd take far longer. And I do recall at least kinetic hits on a planet raise a measure of dust into the atmosphere, so using them for days against civilians would have a similar detrimental result as glassing through nukes.
*Like to destroy PDCs, a specific group of facilities or, to more limited effect, ground units. For the latter, perhaps, you could add a more complex mechanic: being under orbital fire would slowly reduce the readiness of the target ground forces, but more importantly it would impose a significant combat penalty on them as long as they're being fired upon, leaving the enemy quite more exposed to attacks from your own troops. This would simulate support fire from your warships in orbit.
Right there, you've answered your own question - because kinetic projectiles used in space combat are NOT aerodynamic cores coated in heat-resistant material, they're steel marbles.
So Gauss Cannons & Railguns don't work for orbital bombardment through atmosphere because they don't currently carry/use "specifically designed ordinance."
I know how things currently work. Hence why I'm making this suggestion. :P
It's not unusual for naval guns to be stocked with multiple kinds of ammunition. You wouldn't even have to specify which type of rounds are being used, since the system would load the right one for the job.
Post by: jseah on April 11, 2011, 10:58:23 PM
- provision of maintenance and fuel will increase diplomatic rating.
Currently, I have a friendly (and soon allied) NPR fleet stationed above my homeworld. Since I'm rather far behind on weapons research, I welcome the defence help. The NPR and my system is part of a linear chain with the NPR's side blocked by an insane nebulae. (it's home system is two jumps away)
Since the NPR doesn't seem like it'll want to pull back it's ships, I would like to extend my maintenance facilities and fuel on my homeworld to cover the NPR's ships so it can use my system as a fleet base.
Post by: EarthquakeDamage on April 12, 2011, 01:35:30 AM
Quote from: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=47678.msg2175183#msg2175183
I never really liked the addition of the wormhole aliens. They're a never ending threat that you can't fight back against - all you can do is kill the ships that come through.
Now if there was a way to research their engine tech and learn how to travel the wormholes, then send fleets back through after them - then it wouldn't be so bad. At least then you would have a goal - stop their incursion once and for all, even if it takes 500 years of building up to do so. As-is, there really isn't a goal associated with the wormhole aliens, other than kill them as they come through and don't die. I mean, at least give us a way to close up their wormholes.
It could have been done really well, like being able to research the tech that opens the wormholes and discover how to close them. Say for example to close them you have to destroy the wormhole generator on the other side, which involves sending a fleet through to take out their defenses and destroy it. The catch is, once it's gone the ships left over there have no way of getting back - so you're left with a choice of how many ships should you leave on the other side to destroy it, and can you get away with leaving one small ship to finish it off when they might get reinforced at any time. Maybe you could eventually research the wormhole generators themselves, and build your own to be able to launch attacks against their generators and get your ships back home with your own generator, then turn it off until you need it again. Eventually you may even be able to turn the tables and get on the offensive, making strikes against their worlds, which would be extremely well defended and require a massive strike force to even have a chance.
Just an example of something that IMO would have made for better gameplay than "Wormehole opens. Aliens stream through endlessly."
Post by: UnLimiTeD on April 12, 2011, 06:10:39 AM
Closing wormholes, sure, then new ones will be created.
But how is that explainable when it isn't even possible to close regular jump points?
Post by: Shadow on April 12, 2011, 09:18:45 AM
Hell, why does everything have to be beatable?
Closing wormholes, sure, then new ones will be created.
But how is that explainable when it isn't even possible to close regular jump points?
Because I believe that, due to the Invaders' superior strength, they otherwise rob the spotlight from the player. They become the main concern of the game and the freedom you'd normally have to explore and expand becomes permanently subjugated to their invasions. Everything else becomes secondary. That is, if you want your colonies to survive.
I replied to that post at Bay 12 as well...
Quote from: Shadow (Greenbane) @ Bay 12 Forums
Quote from: Paul @ Bay 12 ForumsNow if there was a way to research their engine tech and learn how to travel the wormholes, then send fleets back through after them - then it wouldn't be so bad. At least then you would have a goal - stop their incursion once and for all.
(...)A similar goal to defeat the Invaders would be neat. Wormhole traversing could be a technology you can't research and must be obtained from captured/salvaged Invader vessels. Once you got your hands on it, you'd use it against them and destroy their primary base and industrial capacity.
Or simply to close their wormholes as they appear. If you're quick enough, maybe even before ships start streaming through.
Well, I guess that either way they will be the player's primary concern if enabled, but a way to at least temporarily defeat them would give you a fulfilling goal to work towards. Temporary defeat in the sense you could wipe out a single Invader base and delay them across the board, but years later wormholes could begin to reappear, generated by a different Invader force.
EDIT: By the way, I know this can be handled manually, but it would be cool if the Invaders made their appearance not from the beginning of the game (since an early strike can easily wipe out the player) but some point further into it. Maybe after reaching a general level of technological development, or something more unique, like accidentally activating an ancient Invader beacon while excavating Precursor ruins. You'd think the Invaders wouldn't bother to exterminate races until something (hopefully not simple space travel) convinced them said races are a potential threat.
Post by: Charlie Beeler on April 12, 2011, 02:04:57 PM
Mainly railguns. As I just posted on the Bay 12 forums, you'd use missiles to exterminate population, but kinetic weapons for precise strikes*. You could use the latter against populations, but it'd take far longer. And I do recall at least kinetic hits on a planet raise a measure of dust into the atmosphere, so using them for days against civilians would have a similar detrimental result as glassing through nukes.
*Like to destroy PDCs, a specific group of facilities or, to more limited effect, ground units. For the latter, perhaps, you could add a more complex mechanic: being under orbital fire would slowly reduce the readiness of the target ground forces, but more importantly it would impose a significant combat penalty on them as long as they're being fired upon, leaving the enemy quite more exposed to attacks from your own troops. This would simulate support fire from your warships in orbit.
I know how things currently work. Hence why I'm making this suggestion. :P
It's not unusual for naval guns to be stocked with multiple kinds of ammunition. You wouldn't even have to specify which type of rounds are being used, since the system would load the right one for the job.
A couple of things to keep in mind when considering suggestions related to new orbital bombardment weapons. These are things that Steve has stated in the past are hard and fast rules for Aurora:
1) Atmospheric density of 1 blocks beam weapons with the exception of meson cannons.
2) Planetary bombardment creates atmospheric dust (ie cools the surface) and radiation. Both have segnificant negative impacts of populations.
A couple of other things to consider about this suggestion: Project Thor uses gravity for the bulk of the inertion and rounds segnificant large. Aurora railguns fire projectiles at segnificant fractions of C.
Post by: Shadow on April 12, 2011, 02:35:38 PM
As for projectile velocity, that's variable. Railguns could plausibly fire at a lower "muzzle" velocity if necessary: one would just have to provide less power to the weapon. Less power would theoretically mean a weaker electric current passing through the projectile and therefore a slower launch.
*Effectiveness reduction would come from surgical strikes to logistical targets, command centres, communication arrays and the like.
EDIT: I realize I also mentioned destroying specific groups of facilities, but that can easily amount of planetary annihilation, so you can ignore that.
Post by: Rastaman on April 12, 2011, 03:45:19 PM
Quote
Upon impact each projectile releases its accumulated relativistic mass in a huge explosion. At 99.9% of light speed, an RKKS projectile has a gamma of 22.4, and each proton has an energy of about 21 GeV, each electron 11 MeV. After penetrating a sectional density of about 0.7 ton/m^2, each proton or neutron in the spacecraft will have collided with a nucleus of a molecule in the air. This will disintegrate any atomic nucleus involved and give a spray of hadrons and mesons. Since the atmosphere of an Earth-like world holds about 10 tons per square meter of surface area, no part of the projectile can be expected to reach the ground un-disintegrated.
The protons, neutrons, and mesons produced will interact with air nuclei before they hit the ground, and the particles they produce will interact, and so on, until 10 tons/m^2 is reached. This about 14 interaction lengths, with each interaction dividing the energy of that hadron or meson amongst all the particles coming out of that collision. Since electronic losses alone will stop a 1 GeV proton within about 3 tons/m^2 (and the 1 GeV proton will participate in several nuclear interactions before this, thus dumping its energy even sooner), none of the hadrons or mesons produced in this collision will hit the ground.
Muons from charged pi-meson decays will hit the ground, this requires the pi-mesons to decay before they hit an air nucleus in order to produce muons. Neutral pi-mesons will decay almost immediately into high energy gamma rays, which will produce electromagnetic showers (a gamma ray is absorbed in producing a high energy electron and positron pair, which then produce more gamma rays as they slam into atoms, which produce more electrons and positrons). Some of the gammas from these showers
may also make it to the ground. In fact the proportion of primary radiation that will reach the ground from the 20 GeV initial proton and neutron energies will be very small, but a small proportion of a large number (the original kinetic energy of the spacecraft) is still significant.
The radiation that makes it through the air to the ground will be scattered over a footprint with a radius of several hundred meters. Anything within that footprint will suffer the effects of the radiation. Anything outside that footprint is likely safe from the primary radiation. This means that a RKKS projectile will dump most of its energy in the upper to middle stratosphere. This amounts to about 2E18 J per kg of spacecraft, or about 400,000 MT per kg. It takes about 1 MJ/m^2 of radiant flux to flash fabric to flame and cause third degree burns to exposed skin.
Assuming a 100,000 ton RKKS weapon the energy of impact would be 2E26 J. If half of this energy goes into the heat pulse, this produces a radiant flux of 1 MJ/m^2 at a distance of 3 million km. Anything within line of sight of the air-burst is burnt to a crisp. The impact energy of 2E26 J is almost sufficient to blow off an Earth-like planet's atmosphere, which woould require around 3E26 J to remove completely. In addition the oceans and lakes of the rivers within sight of the impact explosion would start to boil, replacing the breathable atmosphere with high-pressure steam and effectively sterilising the planet.
http://www.orionsarm.com/eg-article/4771ba89da222
Post by: Shadow on April 12, 2011, 04:03:30 PM
Post by: Charlie Beeler on April 13, 2011, 07:18:03 AM
As I implied earlier, I'm not proposing the use of kinetic weapons as a safe planetary annihilation alternative to missiles, but primarily a tactical weapon to reduce the effectiveness* of enemy ground troops, not wipe them out, and support invasions (or planetary defenses if you somehow regain space superiority after enemy troops have landed). Much like battleship guns were used for fire support in real life during amphibious assaults.
As for projectile velocity, that's variable. Railguns could plausibly fire at a lower "muzzle" velocity if necessary: one would just have to provide less power to the weapon. Less power would theoretically mean a weaker electric current passing through the projectile and therefore a slower launch.
*Effectiveness reduction would come from surgical strikes to logistical targets, command centres, communication arrays and the like.
EDIT: I realize I also mentioned destroying specific groups of facilities, but that can easily amount of planetary annihilation, so you can ignore that.
So your not actually proposing an alternate role for an existing beam weapon. Which is good since beam weapons are specifically excluded from having the effect your looking for, precision weapons having a combat effect on dispursed troops in the field.
While I do agree with some of this, I higher doubt that it will be implemented. Primarily because a driving concept in Aurora is that ground troops are the main counter to ground troops and that orbital naval gun support is not to be allowed.
This goes back to our Starfire days. Once you've taken the high orbitals made a few "demonstration strikes" it's all over but the shouting. Ground troops there are basically for garrison work only. A primary Aurora concept is that orbital bombardment is at best an large area effect not precision tool. As long as a population does not have overwhelming troop strength in their face they will not capitulate.
Before I'd get behind orbital naval gun support the AI's handling of ground troops would have to be significantly changed. When looking at computer NPR's in developer mode I don't see brigade or division HQ's being assigned subordinate regiments. If at the very least these HQ's are being assigned then, maybe, I'd accept the ability to target those HQ's for precision strikes to disrupt the command bonuses.
Something else to consider, any suggestion that has any hope of being implemented must have a significant improvement in play from Steve's point of view if it involves a significant amount of coding changes.
Post by: Shadow on April 13, 2011, 12:13:58 PM
Post by: WHCnelson on April 14, 2011, 10:32:14 AM
But, I think something should be added to the Diplomacy screen
for talking to other races. These could include an offer for them
to surrender after destroying their moble units, ground units, and
shipyard... and bombarding their population for one or two
incruments... ::) ;D :D
Post by: wilddog5 on April 16, 2011, 06:30:34 AM
While this will increase the build increment and add a slight delay in starting a contract it will reduce the normal increment time and allow the lines etc to run at maximum efficiently no matter the increment used so the player will not have to use smaller increments to get maximum wealth from these ships
Post by: sloanjh on April 16, 2011, 11:59:33 AM
I'm using an Enterprise icon for my ships on the Galactic Map. I'm in contact with two NPR. When I just went to mark their fleets in their home systems, I found that they're using Enterprise icons too. Then I noticed that one of them picked the same flag as my race. It would be nice to be able to change these in the same way you can now rename alien races.
John
Post by: jseah on April 16, 2011, 04:09:32 PM
So here's my attempt at creating a different kind of NPR. It behaves significantly differently and utilizes different strategies, not as a matter of arbitrary decisions but due to how it is different.
Special alien race: Like NPR, but spawns only once.
The race consists of two populations. Call them "upper" and "lower" for how the food chain goes. Both populations are sentient and thus can perform industry.
Fluff & biology:
Upper eats the lower race and in doing so has a 1/10 chance of hatching another upper race member from the corpse. They don't have to eat very often but can do so at an extreme rate if given the chance.
Lower race breeds like rabbits, fast enough to outbreed the minimum rate of eating from the upper race.
This makes the dynamic very interesting as population constraints are incredibly tight.
Mechanics:
Upper race has a food rationing system. Each 1mil population growth requires the death of 10 million population of the lower race. Population growth of upper race can be set by government policy on each planet from between 5% to 200%. Population size does not affect birth rate.
If there is no lower race on the planet, the planet is unsuitable for colonization. (!!)
Every planet that has the higher race dying due to unsuitable colonization causes unrest to increase empire-wide by 5%.
Lower race breeds at 20%, unaffected by population size. The population of lower race is not allowed to operate TN tech (see below) and they operate conventional industry fit for their population (population grants effective CIs don't exist to be moved or converted).
However, since they are essentially food for the upper race, they incredibly restless and are perpetually at the lowest political status. Furthermore, the garrison and space-firepower required per 1million population increases as the population size increases. IE. big populations of lower race are incredibly difficult to control.
When unrest modifier gets below 30%, the lower race instigates a rebellion and becomes an independent non-TN entity. This will attack any upper race population on the planet and if successful, might even capture TN technology and become an NPR in it's own right. As an NPR, the lower race is incredibly xenophobic only towards the upper race and starts at war with the upper race.
The mere existence of a lower race NPR with TN tech inspires unrest on all captive lower race populations by 10%, potentially triggering an empire-wide rebellion. All future rebellions join this new NPR or form a new one if the old one was destroyed.
Any such lower race NPR returns to being a normal NPR with all the usual rules (population growth decreases to standard levels and no free conventional industry), fluff-wise being that they were kept in third world conditions and so had higher birth rates.
Differences to normal gameplay:
Upper race has to perform a juggling act. Too high lower race growth means they get impossible to control and will rebel. Rebelling is very dangerous.
The easy way to solve high lower race populations is simply to eat them. 200% growth per year will cause a population crash.
However, doing this means the high race population will now increase and start to eat more. Outgrow the lower race population and you could eat them all on the planet and everyone starves...
This forces the pair of races to continually expand. There is no option, expand or implode due to rebellion. The loads of free conventional industry gives a major boost to industrial capacity, to the point that they can support massive expansion. At the same time, the requirement of strictly controlling higher race population means you cannot have enough population to support large TN economies (although mines and CFs are waste of population), most of which is tied up in shipyards manufacturing colony ships for population control.
Which leads to a race that is low on tech but fields incredibly huge fleets and expands all over the place.
Unfortunately for their huge fleets, the amount of firepower required to control their lower race population is exorbitant and forces them to spread out their fleet so smaller, higher tech opponents can defeat them in detail.
Post by: Thiosk on April 16, 2011, 04:24:34 PM
Post by: dooots on April 19, 2011, 11:16:52 PM
Post by: Charlie Beeler on April 20, 2011, 07:00:01 AM
Add a default order to clear default orders. In my current game clearing the default orders of 24 gravsurvey ships is a real pain.
There are radio buttons at the bottom of the F12 Task Group Screen to clear both Default and Conditional orders for the viewed TG.
Post by: Charlie Beeler on April 20, 2011, 07:07:12 AM
I have always been irritated at the way different races in SF strategy games seem to be no more than reskinned aliens. Aurora has avoided that with the special encounters but NPRs are still kinda bland.
So here's my attempt at creating a different kind of NPR. It behaves significantly differently and utilizes different strategies, not as a matter of arbitrary decisions but due to how it is different.
Special alien race: Like NPR, but spawns only once.
The race consists of two populations. Call them "upper" and "lower" for how the food chain goes. Both populations are sentient and thus can perform industry.
Fluff & biology:
Upper eats the lower race and in doing so has a 1/10 chance of hatching another upper race member from the corpse. They don't have to eat very often but can do so at an extreme rate if given the chance.
Lower race breeds like rabbits, fast enough to outbreed the minimum rate of eating from the upper race.
This makes the dynamic very interesting as population constraints are incredibly tight.
Mechanics:
Upper race has a food rationing system. Each 1mil population growth requires the death of 10 million population of the lower race. Population growth of upper race can be set by government policy on each planet from between 5% to 200%. Population size does not affect birth rate.
If there is no lower race on the planet, the planet is unsuitable for colonization. (!!)
Every planet that has the higher race dying due to unsuitable colonization causes unrest to increase empire-wide by 5%.
Lower race breeds at 20%, unaffected by population size. The population of lower race is not allowed to operate TN tech (see below) and they operate conventional industry fit for their population (population grants effective CIs don't exist to be moved or converted).
However, since they are essentially food for the upper race, they incredibly restless and are perpetually at the lowest political status. Furthermore, the garrison and space-firepower required per 1million population increases as the population size increases. IE. big populations of lower race are incredibly difficult to control.
When unrest modifier gets below 30%, the lower race instigates a rebellion and becomes an independent non-TN entity. This will attack any upper race population on the planet and if successful, might even capture TN technology and become an NPR in it's own right. As an NPR, the lower race is incredibly xenophobic only towards the upper race and starts at war with the upper race.
The mere existence of a lower race NPR with TN tech inspires unrest on all captive lower race populations by 10%, potentially triggering an empire-wide rebellion. All future rebellions join this new NPR or form a new one if the old one was destroyed.
Any such lower race NPR returns to being a normal NPR with all the usual rules (population growth decreases to standard levels and no free conventional industry), fluff-wise being that they were kept in third world conditions and so had higher birth rates.
Differences to normal gameplay:
Upper race has to perform a juggling act. Too high lower race growth means they get impossible to control and will rebel. Rebelling is very dangerous.
The easy way to solve high lower race populations is simply to eat them. 200% growth per year will cause a population crash.
However, doing this means the high race population will now increase and start to eat more. Outgrow the lower race population and you could eat them all on the planet and everyone starves...
This forces the pair of races to continually expand. There is no option, expand or implode due to rebellion. The loads of free conventional industry gives a major boost to industrial capacity, to the point that they can support massive expansion. At the same time, the requirement of strictly controlling higher race population means you cannot have enough population to support large TN economies (although mines and CFs are waste of population), most of which is tied up in shipyards manufacturing colony ships for population control.
Which leads to a race that is low on tech but fields incredibly huge fleets and expands all over the place.
Unfortunately for their huge fleets, the amount of firepower required to control their lower race population is exorbitant and forces them to spread out their fleet so smaller, higher tech opponents can defeat them in detail.
Personally, I'd rather see the AI enhanced for a much more varied NPR based on the racial traits and government selections. This would make a much more broad spectrum game. This won't happen anytime soon since it would be a major overhaul of the core code. Frankly I'm hoping Steve is planning something along these lines for Aurora II.
If you really want each race to be unique there is only one option for now, player controlled NPR.
Post by: AirborneRifles on April 20, 2011, 09:01:22 AM
In a similar vein, how about some sort of jamming weapon? I understand how Microwaves work right now, but what I'm talking about is some sort of long range weapon whose effect is only temporary. It could be targeted at a specific sensor to degrade the performance of that sensor. For example, if you're sending in a strike of fighters and an enemy ship has a R4 sensor, you could have a standoff jammer degrading the performance of that specific sensor to allow your fighters to get in close. As soon as the weapon is turned off the performance of the sensor goes back to 100%. ECCM would mitigate the effects of the jamming.
I understand a lot of this is abstracted already in ECM and ECCM already in the game, but I think this could add another element and make beam fighters a bigger part of the equation.
Post by: Thiosk on April 20, 2011, 02:45:57 PM
(http://content7.flixster.com/question/42/96/80/4296805_std.jpg)
I love beams so anything to make beams more awesome is totally awesome.
Post by: dooots on April 20, 2011, 06:40:23 PM
There are radio buttons at the bottom of the F12 Task Group Screen to clear both Default and Conditional orders for the viewed TG.
That is what I use, but if I could set the secondary default command to clear the default commands I would get one message about there being no more location to survey and I would be done with it. Then when it comes time to move to the next system I give the orders to the lead gravsurvey ship use the copy button and away they go to repeat the process.
Post by: jseah on April 20, 2011, 06:55:23 PM
Galactic map will show you all the explored systems of the empire and the links they have probed. Comes after sharing grav. survey data. Any they explore that is a unique system gets flagged as their territory by default (so you know which ones are yours and which are theirs).
- Optionally, the names that appear on your map might even be the names they use for it.
Sharing communications means that if they meet any NPR or spoiler, they will share identification and characteristics of the met ships with you. And if they establish communcations with any race, you get communications with those races too. Comes after sharing galactic map.
Share sensor data. Any contacts they can see will be shared with you as well. Active sensor coverage of their ships will allow your firecontrols to target. Comes after sharing communications.
Post by: Caesar on April 22, 2011, 05:51:39 PM
I haven't a clue whether this has been proposed before (I dare take the bet it has), but it would be interesting to see a biosphere introduced to the planets. For a planet to reach a colonization value of zero for your race, it should also have a reasonably developed compatible biosphere. This would make terraforming projects all the more difficult, but perhaps basic levels of plant-life could be introduced early on, which would effectively help alter the atmosphere.
Biological or Chemical warfare.
Instead of arming missiles with radioactive warheads only, it should be possible to deliver special pathogens or chemical agents to alien (or your own) populations. The biology/genetics research tab would be used, and you might include immunity to certain chemical/pathogenic agents in new races you develop.
These weapons would make a planet uninhabitable, and decrease the growth ratio of their populations much more than radioactive weapons, but they would not damage infrastructure. Perhaps they might decrease in effectiveness faster, though, although decontaminating the planet could take huge efforts.
Post by: davidr on April 23, 2011, 04:03:52 AM
In the "Fuel Report/Fuel Situation" would it be possible to filter out the independent civilian cargo/colony ships as the report grows ever larger as civilian shipping lines build vessels and there is nothing a player can instigate in respect to these vessels.
DavidR
Post by: jseah on April 23, 2011, 01:32:02 PM
Racial reproduction increase / decrease 5 to 50%
Each level applies a modifier to the population growth rate if the rate is positive.
Would be incredibly useful in the long term to modify all your populations to have 50% increased birth rates.
Post by: PandaQ on April 23, 2011, 07:50:44 PM
Post by: jRides on April 24, 2011, 04:17:31 PM
Add Gunboats to the fighter Squadrons Window, so squadrons of gunboats can be made too.
Also, an ability/button to print out a fully extended OOB from the Naval Organisation tab in the Task Groups/Naval Organisation tab.
On the Fighter Squadrons Window, can you change the mothership dropdown box to add the class designation of each listed possible mothership, and/or list them alphabetically instead of order created. Another thing which would be cool here is the ability to add each squadron to the Naval Organisation Tab, to the task group containing the mothership they land on. At the moment I create a squadron, designate its mothership, land the squadron then launch it again so I can add it manually (Add TG) to the relevant manually created squadron branch, before recovering them again.
Seconding the Increasing efficiency of engineering spaces:
Larger Cargo Containers, Fuel Storage and Crew Quarters, especially as later in the game the ships get bigger, fuel transports gets especially ridiculous.
Bigger fuel Containers - the numbers of crew required on the larger FTs gets enormous. What would be ideal is the ability to make Fuel Containers in the same way Magazines are made, using Armour, HTK and Size as the variables, anything above 1 HTK classed as military and only available once the relevant level of Armoured Fuel Bunker is researched (I never bother with that as it is as ships generally require a lot of fuel storage and I think (not entirely sure) that it holds a smaller amount than the normal fuel containers).
Post by: Ziusudra on April 24, 2011, 06:30:04 PM
I think (not entirely sure) that it holds a smaller amount than the normal fuel containers).Yes, same size but 80% of the fuel (40,000 instead of 50,000).
Post by: sloanjh on April 24, 2011, 09:11:54 PM
I'm got trade relations with an NPR with ~50 ships in orbit of its homeworld. Every time my civies leave, I get spammed with "neutral contact lost" messages. Every time they show up, I get "new contact" spam. The only way to avoid this would be to park a ship over each NPR world so the contacts wouldn't keep popping in and out, and even then I'd get spammed when new ships were built, activated sensors, etc.
It occurs to me that if there were a way of flagging then NPR homeworld into a "don't bug me - I know there's a lot of ships there" then a lot of this stuff could be filtered out. Note that I don't want to filter out all "new neutral contract" reports - there are other races that aren't yet friendly that I want to be notified about.
John
Post by: Caesar on April 27, 2011, 04:40:55 PM
Post by: LtWarhound on April 30, 2011, 01:19:57 PM
Quote from: Caesar link=topic=2828. msg34284#msg34284 date=1303940455
I would love the ability to destroy jumpgates.
Like shipyards, jumpgates should be an object that you can interact with. I'd suggest the ability to destroy it, prefab it (tow it to the jump point and then finish building, allowing for quicker advances) and make the activation detectable on EM sensors - I imagine it would 'flare' during use and that energy spike would be 'easily' noticed at some distance.
*
I'd find it easier to play Aurora if the UI was more user friendly. Most of my discomfort falls into 'annoying but I can ignore it' category. Two areas, however, I find really irritating.
1) The F2 Population and Production screen, the Populations Locations section is a core area of the game, that sees constant use, yet its very user hostile. It could really use a way to sort the Population Locations list, the biggest improvement would be a way to force it to group locations by system as the default. I hesitate to suggest a checkbox to set this behavior due to the habit of checkboxes in Aurora to reset (i. e. going to the F12 screen, Naval Organization tab and having to recheck the 'Show Fleet and Location' box every time is one of those 'annoying but I can ignore it' problems).
2) The F12 Task Groups gets used as much as the F2 screen. The task group list in the 'Details and Special Orders' section gets excessive quickly. The Task Force dropdown, what exactly does that do? If it could be used to restrict the task group list to that specific Task Force, then it would be a useful tool to manage the list of task groups. It would allow me to separate out my non-combat ships (asteroid miners, freighters, etc) into one list, the pickets/pdc/jump gate static defense into another, and the combat ops ships into a third, and only access the group I want to be working with at that moment.
Post by: sloanjh on April 30, 2011, 01:56:46 PM
I've started pre-fabing engines for my naval construction, since that's typically about 1/2 the build time. I just got a new engine tech, so I'm launching a big wave of building. I've got 4 slipways tooled up for a 30kton BB (40 engines each), and I've got a ton of SY/slipways tooled up for various 1kton corvettes (2 engines each). What I'm trying to do is to lay down a new BB every time I reach 40 engines stockpiled. The problem is that my 1st wave of corvettes are beginning to roll off the lines, and every time I lay down a 2nd-wave corvette it eats two of the engines that I'm trying to stockpile for the next BB. What I'd like is the ability to say "Lay down this corvette without using any stockpiled components" - that would allow me to save my engines for the BBs.
John
Post by: jseah on April 30, 2011, 02:07:03 PM
The package would only result in actual components when it's finished, so as long as you click "build BB" before you click "build corvette" then there's no problem.
A more controlled way would be to have packages of components be listed as "Wyrm class Escort Frigate Components x1" instead of all the individual components. That way, the components can only be used for that design (and shipyards will preferably use packages rather than loose components).
And when you disassemble the package, that breaks it up into the individual components for other ships to use.
Post by: Ziusudra on April 30, 2011, 03:33:58 PM
The Task Force dropdown, what exactly does that do?
It is how you set what TF the current TG is in. If it were changed to limit the TG dropdown, some other way to set the TF for the TG would need to be added.
I think a better solution would be to add a button to the TF (Ctrl+F4) window that opens the TG window for the selected TG. That window already shows only the TG in the current TF.
Edit: Although, proper use of the Naval Org tab on the TG window can already provide an easier way to find each TG.
Post by: sloanjh on April 30, 2011, 03:56:47 PM
It is how you set what TF the current TG is in. If it were changed to limit the TG dropdown, some other way to set the TF for the TG would need to be added.
I think a better solution would be to add a button to the TF (Ctrl+F4) window that opens the TG window for the selected TG. That window already shows only the TG in the current TF.
Edit: Although, proper use of the Naval Org tab on the TG window can already provide an easier way to find each TG.
This is what it used to do. Ever since the introduction of the Naval Org tab it's been broken (the setting you choose doesn't "stick" - to see this, change the TF of a TG, then select another TG from the drop down, then select the first TG. You'll see that the TF setting is back to what it was). At present, the only way that I'm aware of to get a TG into a TF is by forming it from the Naval Org tab.
John
Post by: Ziusudra on April 30, 2011, 04:31:07 PM
In a previous 5.42 game I had a training TF and used that dropdown to move ships between it and the main TF without that or any problem.
I'll have to play around with it to see if I can get it to work again.
Post by: ExChairman on May 03, 2011, 12:14:44 AM
Is there a way to place a ground chief at a planet, as a army leader... If not it should bee...
Post by: Charlie Beeler on May 03, 2011, 09:05:27 AM
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,3538.0.html (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,3538.0.html)
Post by: jseah on May 03, 2011, 05:44:35 PM
When designing an engine, we should also get to choose the size. Currently getting stuck on 5HS chunks means to maintain a certain % of engine, I need to make my ships a certain multiple of that size.
Oddly tonned ships are out of luck.
If applied to FAC and fighter engines, would also resolve Charlier Beeler's suggestion.
Post by: sloanjh on May 03, 2011, 11:54:28 PM
Actually, I would like to see engines get a slight rework.
When designing an engine, we should also get to choose the size. Currently getting stuck on 5HS chunks means to maintain a certain % of engine, I need to make my ships a certain multiple of that size.
Oddly tonned ships are out of luck.
If applied to FAC and fighter engines, would also resolve Charlier Beeler's suggestion.
Seconded.
In addition, Charlie made what I thought was a VERY interesting point in his thread: do we really need the "Only 1 GB or FTR engine per ship" limitation? It seems to me that the 10x or 100x fuel consumption rates of these engines are already pretty strong limiters in terms of not piling too many of them into a single ship, especially for fighter engines - I suspect we don't need the externally imposed limit.
Two things I think would be needed in addition:
1) Ships docked in hangers should either not accrue training points or should burn fuel (possibly at a 25% or 50% rate to represent only being flying part of the time). Training high-power ships should be REALLY expensive in fuel - at present it costs nothing. The bug/exploit where training ships at in a fleet that's slower than their max speed burns fuel at a lower rate needs to be fixed too.
2) I think tractors are overly simplistic/unbalanced. At present, a single tractor unit can channel the power of 500 commercial engines. I think a "power capacity rating" (and maybe a tech line to go with it) needs to be put into tractors.
John
Post by: Narmio on May 04, 2011, 01:48:20 AM
If you removed the restriction on number but kept fighter engines to or less ships only and gunboat engines on 500-1000t ships only it might be interesting. Alternatively you could up the limit to two, since dual-engine is about the most a practical design could use.
Post by: EarthquakeDamage on May 04, 2011, 03:00:00 AM
1) Ships docked in hangers should either not accrue training points or should burn fuel (possibly at a 25% or 50% rate to represent only being flying part of the time). Training high-power ships should be REALLY expensive in fuel - at present it costs nothing. The bug/exploit where training ships at in a fleet that's slower than their max speed burns fuel at a lower rate needs to be fixed too.
Do you really want to make fighters unusable? You could probably get away with GB fuel usage in training, but that extra x10 consumption from fighters is damned expensive.
2) I think tractors are overly simplistic/unbalanced. At present, a single tractor unit can channel the power of 500 commercial engines. I think a "power capacity rating" (and maybe a tech line to go with it) needs to be put into tractors.
Maybe. You still need a large, expensive tug to tow other large ships at an appreciable speed. Regardless, Steve seems to prefer erring on the side of complexity, but I'll ask this anyway: How much gameplay do we really gain from the added complexity?
Dual-engine fighters would be an interesting prospect. It would make 350-500t fighters viable. The problem is that FAC engines would probably never be used if you removed the restrictions entirely - you'd just strap five fighter engines onto an 800t gunboat that could outrun low-tech hyperdrives. Fuel use would be hilarious, though. Also inevitably some insane person is going to make a 20,000t battlecruiser using 100 fighter engines. Sure it might go through an entire gas giant worth of sorium in one flight, but it won't get hit! And that's just getting silly.
Herp derp the counterbalance to GB/FTR speed is the fuel consumption. Fret all you like about ZOMGlightspeedbattlecruisers, but they'll never be feasible. Sure, you could build one for emergency use, or maybe just for the lulz, but it'd never be the bread and butter of your battle fleet.
Post by: jseah on May 04, 2011, 03:04:41 AM
Fuel use would be hilarious, though. Also inevitably some insane person is going to make a 20,000t battlecruiser using 100 fighter engines. Sure it might go through an entire gas giant worth of sorium in one flight, but it won't get hit! And that's just getting silly.Fuel use. Precisely that.
100 fighter engines gobbles fuel... well, like 100 fighters. At 7800% fuel use, 90 000 litres will give you 48 hours, on one engine. (a current FAC design I have is 20 days at 780%)
On 100 engines, that ship sucks 4.5 million litres of fuel in two days. Exactly how is this useful since all that engine space you saved gets stuck in fuel tanks and more? (note: 4.5 million litres of fuel = 90 fuel tanks = 90HS)
If you want to limit ships, assing a delta-v maximum that decreases with size and increases with armour. (bigger ships have a larger strain when the engines at the back thrust, since they presumably have a larger hull and stuff that sticks out the side will suffer more torque)
Use that for the checking against hit rate as well. Not sure if we want to deal with acceleration but the fuel use is already too insane.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another suggestion:
More than one engine type allowed per hull.
The ship has to gain a window the arranges the preference of engine use wrt speed.
If hyper is possible, hyperengines get the hyper multiplier to power. (and likewise higher efficiency)
eg.
Cruising
1st, Fuel efficiency: Uses most efficient engines first, then progressing downwards.
2nd, Thermal emission: Ties are broken preferring lower thermals.
Stealth
1st, Thermal emission
2nd, Fuel efficiency
Then we can do things like stick a gunboat or fighter engine on a normal military ship and never use it during cruising, but in battle there's the option to "go to flank speed" and burn more fuel.
Would totally do that on bigger ships. A block of high power/weight engines for just that little kick when you need it, but your strategic movement speed is much lower.
Like using two military engines per 10 ktons, plus 10 gunboat engines which are usually not running. When battle is engaged, go to full speed and guzzle fuel for the half an hour or so.
Also has other things like attaching a tug boat to a FAC, and thus saving fuel for long hauls. Cruising engine attachments. Hyper engine attachments.
Post by: UnLimiTeD on May 04, 2011, 04:01:33 AM
Having multiple engine types will allow for a variety of tactics.
Fighter Engines will never be feasible in big ships, so there is no risk in lifting the limitation, Gunboat Engines are more dangerous, but ultimately, they still go down in a fire if hit and are strategically not viable. Like missiles^^
As for tractors, the pure idea of a tractor beam seems pretty high tech to me. I'd vote to just replace it with transportation clamps, have a maximum size the ship can tug based on how many it has, and have Tractors as a higher level tech that also eases boarding and allows to tug multiple ships at once if you have multiple.
Post by: Charlie Beeler on May 04, 2011, 03:02:54 PM
Seconded.
In addition, Charlie made what I thought was a VERY interesting point in his thread: do we really need the "Only 1 GB or FTR engine per ship" limitation? It seems to me that the 10x or 100x fuel consumption rates of these engines are already pretty strong limiters in terms of not piling too many of them into a single ship, especially for fighter engines - I suspect we don't need the externally imposed limit.
<snipped tractor topic>
John
As long as the fighter max hs limitation of 10 and gunboat limitation of 20 is retained it would be self limiting. Either my suggestion of up powering fighter engines or removing the 1 only restriction will require Steve to make a coding change. Ideally, like to see both. ;D
Post by: jRides on May 04, 2011, 06:04:30 PM
I'm not sure just how you would go about balancing this out (military only? explosion chance increases 0.1% per day for power increase and thermal reduction?) but a military engine that gave me these three options would pretty much be standard for me once I had the tech.
Those times when you really need a fleet to be somewhere fast gives you the option of racing there on emergency power - with the caveat that theres a chance not all ships will make it as their engines fail during the journey, sometime quite spectacularly.
Post by: EarthquakeDamage on May 04, 2011, 06:08:03 PM
thermal reduction I think should be a third techline
Thermal signature is a function of thrust and the thermal reduction multiplier. In fact, it's linearly proportional to both. If you switch from high to low power, it'll change automagically. It doesn't need a separate switch.
Post by: jRides on May 04, 2011, 06:13:05 PM
Post by: Narmio on May 04, 2011, 08:22:34 PM
Post by: Charlie Beeler on May 06, 2011, 01:43:38 PM
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,3552.0.html (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,3552.0.html)
Post by: jseah on May 07, 2011, 06:38:11 AM
Since higher tech armour on ships weighs less for the same protection, the same should apply to missiles. Might be small, but every bit counts on a missile.
Post by: Brian Neumann on May 07, 2011, 06:48:47 AM
Armour tech level should improve the efficiency of missile armour.Seconded
Since higher tech armour on ships weighs less for the same protection, the same should apply to missiles. Might be small, but every bit counts on a missile.
Brian
Post by: welchbloke on May 07, 2011, 06:57:51 AM
SecondedThirded :D
Brian
Post by: jseah on May 07, 2011, 09:42:47 AM
Construction factories should not be cooperative. Or at least not as much as they are now.
It's entirely unrealistic that 2000 construction factories employing 100 million workers can all work together to produce a tiny tiny size 1 sensor, completing it in less than half an hour...
Much less swap between various construction projects without significant retooling.
While I cannot expect CFs to work like shipyards due to the insane complexity that will generate, I propose a compromise.
The maximum amount of construction factories (as a percentage of total) that can be allocated to a specific project (ie. block of components or facilities) is dependent on the size of the project itself.
Once started, the project will retain it's percentage until it is complete. Even if the project's cost drops later, as long as the number of units demanded and factories allocated isn't modified, it will retain it's percentage. Otherwise it will be considered a new project.
A button needs to be added to add all remaining/maximum allowed CFs to a specific project since I forsee alot of decimals being generated.
Another alternative is to have the number automatically adjust downwards to the maximum or available CFs, so you can just leave it 100% and it will allocate maximum all the time.
Two ways to do this:
Either the number of factories allowable is proportional to the cost, which then results in all projects under a certain cost require the same amount of time...
Or the number of factories allowable is proportional to some decreasing function of the cost, which then results in smaller projects taking longer per BP to produce (but still taking less time)
Either way, really large projects that take significant time to complete (some arbitrarily decided BP cost) even with the entire planetary industry devoted to it should be able to take complete focus.
Specifically, the 2.4k cost facilities and large expansion orders.
So both ways need to let up to 100% of industry focus on projects above a certain size.
The way that projects queued in one go will retain their allocation encourages multiple units of small components to be build together. Which is a sort of nod to the need to retool production lines, without the hassle.
Handling of queues will need to be reworked though.
Post by: EarthquakeDamage on May 07, 2011, 10:15:28 AM
I don't like it, but IMO it better reflects economies of scale and so forth than your proposal.
Post by: sloanjh on May 07, 2011, 06:14:45 PM
Armour tech level should improve the efficiency of missile armour.Fourthed.
Since higher tech armour on ships weighs less for the same protection, the same should apply to missiles. Might be small, but every bit counts on a missile.
John
Post by: davidr on May 08, 2011, 11:28:22 AM
In the Ship Design Screen (F5) and the Design View would it be possible for a player to permanently delete obsolete items from the ship components list if he so wishes as the component list can become very unwieldy and there is no way for a new component to automatically replace an older item.
At present if an updated component is to be added to a design a player has to "tick" the obsolete tech box to delete the old component and then find the new component to add from an ever increasing list. If the list of obsolete components could be pruned somehow I feel it would assist in the design process.
DavidR
Post by: UnLimiTeD on May 08, 2011, 11:42:00 AM
Here's another one.
Construction factories should not be cooperative. Or at least not as much as they are now.
I suggest a simple version:
Have a function of size and BP of the new component you want your Industry to produce, and calculate the limit of Factories that can work on it at the same time.
Then automatically allocate as much % of the Planetary Industry as possible, if the player doesn't choose a smaller number himself.
Though ultimately, we don't need to think of Factories as small production centres when it could be a huge complex, being counted as 10 because thats how the game works.
I mean, if I have 2000 Factories, those don't need to be 2000 buildings.
Post by: Ziusudra on May 08, 2011, 03:42:27 PM
In the Ship Design Screen (F5) and the Design View would it be possible for a player to permanently delete obsolete items from the ship components list if he so wishes as the component list can become very unwieldy and there is no way for a new component to automatically replace an older item.
At present if an updated component is to be added to a design a player has to "tick" the obsolete tech box to delete the old component and then find the new component to add from an ever increasing list. If the list of obsolete components could be pruned somehow I feel it would assist in the design process.
DavidR
You can remove components from a design by double-clicking on them in the Components section on right-hand of the Design tab. You don't have to use "Show Obsolete Tech".
Post by: davidr on May 09, 2011, 01:46:31 AM
Many thanks for the info , I did not try that.
DavidR
Post by: IanD on May 09, 2011, 03:25:12 AM
Regards
Post by: jseah on May 09, 2011, 03:49:05 AM
Like no overhauls and auto-jumpgates are simplifications, another one would be to make unlimited resources.
IE. only accessibility is tracked.
Easy enough to have the checkbox disable mineral loss on mining, sorium harvesting, asteroid mining.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
System generation options:
No dead end systems - All systems have at least 2 jumppoints.
No dormant jumppoints - All jumppoints lead to unexplored jumppoints or new systems. The last system to be generated when the system limit is reached will be generated with a number of jumppoints that makes the number of unexplored jumppoints be an even number.
Post by: chrislocke2000 on May 09, 2011, 06:42:52 AM
In the weapons screen, either continue to highlight on the ship list or have a separate box detailed which ship you actually currently have selected.
At the moment, by the time I have selected a ship, dealt with fire controls and missiles and assigned targets I've typically managed to forget which ship in order I've just set up.
Similarly, in the target list box perhaps you could add a highlight to show hostile ships which have already been targeted by the TG. Would again help when you are taking a more manual approach to allocating weapons - often the case when there are different size hostiles and hence the "target all at same location" button is of less use.
Post by: jseah on May 10, 2011, 05:07:30 AM
Single-shot weapons mounted on an engine and given to a missile launcher. Firing controlled from the ship of course.
Put any normal beam weapon, set a firing range, missile flies over, delivers one shot and runs out of power.
Might also give an option to mount two shots or more by doubling size, essentially mounting two weapons instead of one.
Obviously warhead is replaced by weapon + capacitor. (using the associated beam tech)
So we can have meson missiles, HPM missiles, sort-of-laser warheads, etc.
Leads very nicely into drone ships. If the capacitor size gives X power from which the weapon draws to fire, giving multiple shots, then bigger missiles can stick around to shoot a few more times. Drones are obviously the one for that, with buoys having an interesting new minefield type.
Drones could then become short range, one-way trip expendable mini-fighters. Fighter-like action for empires that dislike risking crew. XD
Post by: Charlie Beeler on May 10, 2011, 09:10:32 AM
Alternative missiles:
Single-shot weapons mounted on an engine and given to a missile launcher. Firing controlled from the ship of course.
Put any normal beam weapon, set a firing range, missile flies over, delivers one shot and runs out of power.
Might also give an option to mount two shots or more by doubling size, essentially mounting two weapons instead of one.
Obviously warhead is replaced by weapon + capacitor. (using the associated beam tech)
So we can have meson missiles, HPM missiles, sort-of-laser warheads, etc.
Leads very nicely into drone ships. If the capacitor size gives X power from which the weapon draws to fire, giving multiple shots, then bigger missiles can stick around to shoot a few more times. Drones are obviously the one for that, with buoys having an interesting new minefield type.
Drones could then become short range, one-way trip expendable mini-fighters. Fighter-like action for empires that dislike risking crew. XD
A limited version already exists, but too my knowledge no one has really explored using it(including me), laser warheads for missiles.
Post by: sloanjh on May 11, 2011, 09:51:01 PM
The ability to scrap fighters is nice. Now (I know, I know we are never satisfied!) can we have those scrapped fighters first depositing their ordnance at the population they are scrapped at, currently it appears just to be lost and second when new fighters are built check to see if there are components that can be utilised in the new fighters, like 400 size 3 box launchers from the previous fighters that are now cluttering up my stock pile inventory.
Regards
LOL - talk about high-maintenance users!!! What does it take to make you happy? ? ? ? Sheesh!! :)
Seriously, along these same lines.... I think that refits don't check for stockpiled components (I could be wrong about this, however; they certainly don't stockpile the removed components). Is this intentional, or an oversight?
John
Post by: jseah on May 11, 2011, 11:17:52 PM
I am refitting ships in my Central Stars campaign and it does work.
They certainly don't give you back the other components however.
Post by: Thiosk on May 12, 2011, 07:53:29 PM
IF NOT THEY TOTALLY SHOULD!
Post by: Ziusudra on May 12, 2011, 08:08:58 PM
Post by: sloanjh on May 12, 2011, 09:18:23 PM
If I start a game, with the "invader" or disaster boxes unselected, and then later turn them on, do the associated things start to occur in the game?
IF NOT THEY TOTALLY SHOULD!
Invaders do turn on. I turned mine on at year 30 in my conventional-start game, and 16 months later it's affecting 2 systems.
John
Post by: jseah on May 15, 2011, 03:57:23 AM
Galactic map has this floating labels you can add.
Perhaps allow waypoints to be renamed and the new name to show up on the system map instead of a number. (having the ability to "tag" this to a system body would be awesome)
Post by: Ziusudra on May 15, 2011, 05:09:51 PM
having the ability to "tag" this to a system body would be awesomeThe Last button (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,3516.msg34296.html#msg34296) on the Waypoints does this. Select a body and then click that button to create a waypoint there that will follow the body.
Post by: jseah on May 16, 2011, 04:33:26 PM
Example: Sensors
Sensor size should not be a dropdown box but a text input field, like the fields in missiles. (Design a ship, fit the sensor into the remaining available space)
Similar thing should apply to resolution. (eg. I might want to design a sensor of exactly 475 tons to counter a known enemy fighter design)
Since the thing works off a formula already, numerical input (properly sanitized) should be pretty easy work into a sensor design.
Potential list of changes:
Active Sensors / Missile Fire Control
EM & Thermal sensors
Jump Engines
Cloaking Device
Magazine
Missile Launcher
Power Plant
Absorption Shields
Engines should be allowed to have variable sizes
Instead of getting stuck with needing 3.5 commercial engines, simply have engines with variable sizes.
Requires gunboat and fighter engines to have the 1 per ship restriction lifted or retain fixed sizes for those.
Ties into above when allowing engines to accept text fields for sizes.
Maintenance requirements should be visible in component design
With higher granularity in component sizes from text fields, comes the risk that one would design a sensor/jumpdrive that exactly fits into a ship design only to find that after the component is fitted in, it makes the ship have too high of a failure rate.
Hence, the effect of the component on failure rate (% increase + average maintenance cost per year? whatever that formula is) should be displayed during the design of the component.
Crew requirements are already displayed. It could be stuck in there as well.
Post by: Brian Neumann on May 16, 2011, 06:43:07 PM
1.) Have an ordinance module for ships. Same size as the current maintenance module and limit it to producing 1 size of missile. Requires a shipyard refit to change the building speed, or missile size. Let it have whatever the current ordinance build speed is when designed. This would allow for some missile production, especially point defense missiles. It would not help much for normal games, but when you are constantly moving around it would help a lot.
2.) Have some way to produce officers and crew. More crew than officers however. For a standard size module (50hs) have it produce 1/4 officer and 1000 crew per year. With a few modules you would be able to replace crew losses and possibly build a few small ships without significant problems. You would not get many officers from this (1/2 normal compared to crew production).
3.) A ground forces training center. Limit it on design to 1 specific unit type and build speed like the ordinance module.
All three of these need to be working while the ships are moving, not just when they are at a colony. I would also recommend that for missiles and ground forces there must be space in the current task force for them or you can not build any at the time. If around a colony then there is always room on the ground.
4.) A temporary gate building ship component. Takes weeks instead of months but the gate ship is part of the gate and would need it's own jump drive to leave the system. Once the gate is built the gate ship is stationary and any movement of it destroys the gate. This would allow for people who want to play this sort of a game without using lots of jump ships.
Just a few ideas for you to contemplate. You might also want some way to disable paying cash for building things for this type of scenario, or allow a module to produce cash.
Brian
Post by: LoSboccacc on May 17, 2011, 10:16:16 AM
Post by: Thiosk on May 17, 2011, 07:20:26 PM
a separate save file for game universe, so we may easily share our starting scenario
Yes, a nice "export scenario" and "Import scenario" button would be nice-- chuck out parameters in ascii format.
Post by: jseah on May 19, 2011, 05:53:06 PM
Instead of looking up the system name from the dropdown list, you double click the jumppoint when it is already selected and instead of zooming in, it goes to the other system instead.
Can make it some other way like shift-click or add the option to right click dropdown menu.
I'm at 23 systems in Central Stars and it's getting to be a pain to move between systems.
Another work around would be for double click on the galactic map to go to that system in the system map, instead of opening the F9 screen.
Post by: jRides on May 20, 2011, 08:30:47 AM
It would be nice to be able to sort the list of colonies in the F2 screen (Economy) - by system and sector especially.
Also the research underway listing, it would be helpful to be able to double click on the table headings to sort them by that variable.
Post by: wilddog5 on May 20, 2011, 09:01:17 AM
so when you right click the system map it should have a line in the the menu when selected lists the jumppoints in the system (with unknown for unexplored ones), clicking on the system you want goes there
Post by: waresky on May 24, 2011, 01:56:44 PM
Post by: LoSboccacc on May 27, 2011, 05:27:55 AM
Post by: Mel Vixen on May 28, 2011, 06:18:51 AM
Post by: Steve Walmsley on May 28, 2011, 06:27:37 PM
Probably quite a simple one but something that could be very helpful.
In the weapons screen, either continue to highlight on the ship list or have a separate box detailed which ship you actually currently have selected.
At the moment, by the time I have selected a ship, dealt with fire controls and missiles and assigned targets I've typically managed to forget which ship in order I've just set up.
The currently selected ship is shown in the title bar of the F8 window.
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on May 28, 2011, 06:47:20 PM
Similarly, in the target list box perhaps you could add a highlight to show hostile ships which have already been targeted by the TG. Would again help when you are taking a more manual approach to allocating weapons - often the case when there are different size hostiles and hence the "target all at same location" button is of less use.
Good idea. In v5.50 you can choose to highlight contacts that are currently targeted by either the current task group or the same empire. The targeted contacts are shown with a preceding (T)
Steve
Post by: vergeraiders on May 29, 2011, 12:33:19 PM
thanks
Post by: sloanjh on May 29, 2011, 12:38:44 PM
John
Post by: sloanjh on May 29, 2011, 12:46:19 PM
When an officer dies, keep him in a "morgue" for one 5-day cycle. While in the morgue (or while alive) an officer can be selected for a "Hall of Fame" by clicking a checkbox. The hall of fame is a completely different table with a listing of name, final rank, stats (and maybe even history), so that we don't run into the problem of dead officers messing up filtered searches that we used to have IIRC. BTW, can one put notes in an officer, e.g. "Was in command for 1st Battle of Orion, defeated major T'Grunk fleet"? If so, those should be saved too....
John
Post by: welchbloke on May 29, 2011, 02:09:04 PM
Another round of the old "To save dead officers or not to save, that is the question" pendulum:Seconded; this would be very useful and help me to keep track of those 'exceptional officers' that I want to immortalise in my fiction. I would say that John's 'one update' means a single 5 day cycle to me.
When an officer dies, keep him in a "morgue" for one update. While in the morgue (or while alive) an officer can be selected for a "Hall of Fame" by clicking a checkbox. The hall of fame is a completely different table with a listing of name, final rank, stats (and maybe even history), so that we don't run into the problem of dead officers messing up filtered searches that we used to have IIRC. BTW, can one put notes in an officer, e.g. "Was in command for 1st Battle of Orion, defeated major T'Grunk fleet"? If so, those should be saved too....
John
Post by: Father Tim on May 29, 2011, 07:57:56 PM
Quote from: Steve
Change Log
-----------
11) If a design has armour thickness greater than 4, it is considered a military vessel for maintenance purposes
Gah! No, don't! Please change it back. As a frequent inhabitor of nebulae I need my cargo & colony ships to move faster than 1108 kms - not to mention my terraformers, jumpgate construction ships, asteroid miners, salvagers, etc.
Post by: sloanjh on May 29, 2011, 08:32:28 PM
Gah! No, don't! Please change it back. As a frequent inhabitor of nebulae I need my cargo & colony ships to move faster than 1108 kms - not to mention my terraformers, jumpgate construction ships, asteroid miners, salvagers, etc.
Seconded (as in "No, don't!" :) ). I assume that this is to prevent the "hunk of junk" semi-exploit that has shown up on the board recently where people put engines on a big chunk of armor+CIWS and use it as a missile sponge when fighting NPR.
As a compromise, how about another system: "dust screens" which are exclusively for nebulae? The screens would act like extra layers of armor, but only for the purposes of nebulae speed calculation. So the rating would be tonnage covered per HS of screens - this could be a tech line. Then you could keep this restriction in, without killing civies in Nebulae.
John
Post by: sloanjh on May 29, 2011, 08:33:54 PM
Seconded; this would be very useful and help me to keep track of those 'exceptional officers' that I want to immortalise in my fiction. I would say that John's 'one update' means a single 5 day cycle to me.
Sorry - that's what I meant (a single 5-day). I fixed the original post.
John
Post by: wilddog5 on May 30, 2011, 02:14:14 AM
make then have a shield strength of 0.1
make then 5 times bigger than normal shields if the above is done
have the tech line improve 1 armor level in nebular and 0.1 shield per level of tech
this could deal with the nebular problem for civ ships and solve the civ shields people have asked for in the past
Post by: James Patten on May 30, 2011, 05:46:03 AM
Gah! No, don't! Please change it back.
I "third" the motion. Likewise if I have a nebula nearby I work on heavily armoring some of my freighters so that they move at a decent speed.
Post by: UnLimiTeD on May 30, 2011, 07:40:02 AM
Post by: LoSboccacc on May 30, 2011, 08:25:29 AM
10x seems to be the magic civilian-to-military ratio in this game. weight is the usual limiting factor.
Post by: Steve Walmsley on May 30, 2011, 08:43:08 AM
civilian and military grade armor in the component screen, with the civilian 10x more heavy? just following on the thought-train
10x seems to be the magic civilian-to-military ratio in this game. weight is the usual limiting factor.
Hmm! Interesting idea, although the weight penalty would be severe. Maybe instead of 10x as heavy, it could be 10x as fragile, or 5x. A type of armour that is fine for Nebulae but falls apart under weapons fire. That would be the easiest way to handle this without affecting the current mechanics too much
Steve
Post by: jseah on May 30, 2011, 09:28:20 AM
Armour costs quite a bit in duranium and it can't be prefabricated by planetary industry.
The net result being that it sucks alot of shipyard time. Time that could be spent building more missile and laser frigates.
Any such shipyard can't build anything else. You might as well just get a military shipyard instead of a commercial shipyard and turn out more combat ships, Lancaster's square law and all that.
The cheap missile magnet would be armoured fighter engines. You have miss chance due to high speed plus it takes 3-4 missile hits per fighter to kill. Maybe more.
These are buildable by fighter factories but require a carrier to get wherever they're going. If you use a fleet doctrine that doesn't use fighters, these could serve as decent missile magnets for fairly low tech and cost. In fact, by building fighter missile magnets, you might even be able to recoup cost vs missiles spent and simply outproduce your enemy by building fighters faster than he can build missiles.
The exploit here is to get civilian shipping lines to build these. Any system with a decent number of civilian ships then becomes a nightmare for ramming or missile armed fleets.
Post by: UnLimiTeD on May 30, 2011, 10:57:35 AM
As I noticed in my aborted AAR, those armor balls are way too expensive.
Even with 4 layers, They would last a decent amount of time, so just build several.
Alternatively, with more cost, but significantly less build time, 2-3 layers of armor and a few dozen CIWS do the job as well, and you don't even have to repair it.
Armored Cluster-Missiles do the job as well.
While we're at it, in the same way missiles are limited to 1 MSP+ (I still think there should be a tech line to reduce size), in the same vein it's possible to build a multi-stage missile, where each stage is above 1 MSP, but only the last one is really a useful missile, all others are just 0.1 MSP+filler.
The real solution to all those problems would be an AI change, like stopping NPRs from always shooting at the biggest target, which has proven to never be the right choice, and prioritizing big missiles over small ones, unless known, in which case WH size should do.
No matter what is done, someone will always find a way to fool NPRs to fire at useless junk.
Unless theres more spoilers.^^
Post by: sloanjh on May 30, 2011, 11:02:21 AM
I'm in the midst of fighting a bad guy (Invaders) whose ships have exactly the same speed as my FAC and are big and nasty. I made a 4-squadron attack on the only bad guy TG with which I'm in contact. Unfortunately, I had to close to within detection range in order to launch my missiles, so after I launched my strike the bad guy started chasing my strike group.
I managed to disengage most of the strike group by several iterations of scattering, with the TG I wanted him to follow making the largest course correction (hence fastest closure rate for the bad guys) and greatest number of ships - in each case this worked and they followed the one I wanted. I was finally left with the bad guy following 2 1000 ton scout corvettes with military engines (important for fuel consumption), on their way out into deep space. Note that the mass ratio between the bad guy TG and my corvettes was in the 100s.
And now for the problem: the bad guys just blindly followed me for months, because they wouldn't give up. The good news here is that they would eventually get at least one of my ships. The bad news is that I performed a year-long mission kill on their TG at the expense of a scout. In "reality", they would have either given up and left when they saw it was hopeless to chase my TG, or at worst split off an escort to do the chasing.
So the fundamental problem is that the AI is still too predictable - you can game it and control its actions by "showing" it targets (transponders work well for this). In this case I'm not even gaming it - it's just pursuing an unreasonable course that I can't break it out of. I think the way to fix this would be to have each TG have a weighted set of objects, and possibly a weighted set of "how well did this objective work in the past" - while a TG is pursuing an object, the "not working" number would grow until it reached a threshold determination level, at which point a saving roll would be made for continuing to pursue the objective. If the roll failed, then the TG would switch to another objective.
I'm sure this would still have the AI performing unreasonable actions, but this would at least introduce some unpredictability.
John
Post by: sloanjh on May 30, 2011, 11:07:44 AM
The original proposed solution of limiting max armor is not actually a problem.The problem is the side effect it has on limiting freighter/colony speed in nebulae. Or are you saying that the proposed solution shouldn't be implemented because it is to a problem (armor balls) that the game already penalizes sufficiently?
As I noticed in my aborted AAR, those armor balls are way too expensive.
Quote
The real solution to all those problems would be an AI change, like stopping NPRs from always shooting at the biggest target, which has proven to never be the right choice, and prioritizing big missiles over small ones, unless known, in which case WH size should do.
No matter what is done, someone will always find a way to fool NPRs to fire at useless junk.
Unless theres more spoilers.^^
Ok, that's weird. While you were posting this, I was posting about a completely unrelated AI problem. I agree with what you're saying here - it would be nice if there were some randomness in target selection, e.g. random choice weighted by mass/signature.
John
Post by: sloanjh on May 30, 2011, 01:13:36 PM
I just went from Thermal-10 to Thermal-14. This meant a whole wave of e.g. Spruance II --> Spruance IIB minor design improvements. In most of my SY, I immediately launched a retool, but this can't be done in those building new slipways until after the slipway is completed. It also isn't necessary, since both designs can be built by the same SY.
In the past when this happened, I've had cases where Spruance II is obsolete, but it still shows up before Spruance IIB in the class-to-construct pull-down when I want to build a new Spruance (I assume this is because the SY is still tooled for Spruance II, even though it's obsolete). If I don't notice this, then I end up building a Spruance II when I meant to build a IIB. It would be nice if Aurora would warn me that I'm about to build an obsolete class, so that I can either realize what's going on or click "yes, I really want to do this".
John
Post by: Beersatron on May 30, 2011, 02:06:22 PM
Say you want to ship something to Persei Gamma 6 which is 5 jumps from Earth, you would have to set up a colony half way and setup demand/supply orders in such a way as to force the civies to move them to the half way point and then onwards to Persei.
What if there was an interface like the current fleet ordering where you can set up a one way route that is origin->destination. So I would make a route like:
Sol -> Alpha Centauri JP -> Gliese 345 JP -> Procyon JP -> Hypia JP -> Persei Gamme JP
The civies would then look at these stored routes and would compare their current Supply position with the Origin and the Demand positions with the Destination - factoring in the security status and any banned bodies etc.
If there is a match then they will use the predefined route.
Not sure if the Origin and Destination should just be the System or if it has to be an actual Colony.
Thoughts? Am I describing this correctly?
The idea is that this gets around the exponential pathing issue that made Steve restrict civies to 4 jumps maximum.
Post by: sloanjh on May 30, 2011, 02:14:19 PM
The ability to predefine routes would be great and might help with the current cap of 4 jumps that is set for Civilian Shipping.Seconded.
John
Post by: Thiosk on May 30, 2011, 02:20:33 PM
Perhaps linked with commercial spaceports? Such spaceports would allow you to put together a managable list of worlds to consider as part of a trade network. Levels extend distance much the way higher sectors do. So instead of checking out 4 jumps for opportunities, they check systems that are on the trade list. You still want them to autocolonize and do such things, so maybe they can check three jumps out from the network.
Post by: Beersatron on May 30, 2011, 02:53:33 PM
Could it function somewhat like the sector list?
Perhaps linked with commercial spaceports? Such spaceports would allow you to put together a managable list of worlds to consider as part of a trade network. Levels extend distance much the way higher sectors do. So instead of checking out 4 jumps for opportunities, they check systems that are on the trade list. You still want them to autocolonize and do such things, so maybe they can check three jumps out from the network.
Oh, that sounds good! Tie it in with the spaceports, so to start you have to build the colony yourself to the point were you can staff the spaceport and then after that you start to attract the civies!
Post by: Peter Rhodan on May 30, 2011, 04:05:00 PM
In the F2 Population window can you PLEASE add a second choice of menu filter below Empire for planetary systems so that you can list all Populations or just the Populations in a particular system - I am getting so tired of looking Gliese XYZ AII body amongst 200 other Gliese something bodies...........
Please Steve... :)
Post by: jseah on May 31, 2011, 06:04:47 AM
I'm juggling a bunch of shipyards around my homeworld due to population constraints and the need to build multiple specialized hulls.
Currently, the method was to build a bunch of orbiting tugs-without-engines which didn't do anything but tractor / release shipyards to juggle the idle ones with the working ones.
Some form of shipyard function to deactivate them (no worker requirement) in the colony window would be nice.
Post by: Nabobalis on May 31, 2011, 08:21:24 AM
Post by: LoSboccacc on May 31, 2011, 09:24:53 AM
For the next update how about release a patch and a full version and get rid of the old 4.91 and later threads?
if this goes on, I'd like to add to the default installation a preset empty game with reasonable defaults so one can just get rolling
Post by: Nabobalis on May 31, 2011, 10:35:47 AM
Also do the invaders come randomly or does something trigger them?
Post by: Father Tim on May 31, 2011, 10:55:51 AM
Also do the invaders come randomly or does something trigger them?
Yes, to both. They randomly appear, but only after you leave your home system. So a conventional start empire won't be wiped out before they master spaceflight.
Post by: Nabobalis on May 31, 2011, 12:36:32 PM
Yes, to both. They randomly appear, but only after you leave your home system. So a conventional start empire won't be wiped out before they master spaceflight.
Would a trigger of a certain amount of tech points be a nicer way to trigger them?
Post by: Brian Neumann on May 31, 2011, 03:31:35 PM
Brian
Post by: waresky on June 03, 2011, 07:13:53 AM
Gah! No, don't! Please change it back. As a frequent inhabitor of nebulae I need my cargo & colony ships to move faster than 1108 kms - not to mention my terraformers, jumpgate construction ships, asteroid miners, salvagers, etc.
3rd,4th and X'th..
Absolutely DON'T
Post by: sloanjh on June 05, 2011, 11:35:45 AM
I've got a beam-armed picket on a JP into enemy territory. An enemy survey ship is approaching the JP. I've got him on actives, but it'll be 10 hours before he arrives and I can shoot him. Meanwhile, a big battle is going on in another system. I'm pretty sure that what's going to happen is that I'm going to forget the survey ship is there, and he'll zip through the JP without me remembering to shoot at him because I'll get neither an event nor an interrupt when he's within beam range.
I'm pretty sure that NPR, on the other hand, already have this logic built in, so we don't need more NPR-on-NPR interrupts.
[EDIT] - Yep, I missed him. He just transitted.
John
PS - I don't want to target and open fire on the scout now since then I'll be spammed with "No attempt to fire" messages.
Post by: sloanjh on June 05, 2011, 03:03:23 PM
I've been recovering tech specifications from an alien race (e.g. CAPTOR drone), and I can imagine it becoming difficult to distinguish "home grown" designs from alien designs. If you added a "Source Empire" column to the ctrl-F7 screen that would make it easier to track....
Post by: sloanjh on June 05, 2011, 04:10:14 PM
These would dump the ship's current training points into the training pool then refill the ship with the appropriate percentage for the racial training. Of course if you didn't have enough trained crew for the level requested, the balance would be filled out with conscripts.
This is a simple attempt to resolve the frustration I think a lot of us feel about having highly trained cargo ships (or PDC) whose crew we can't get at to put on more useful ships. It wouldn't address the fleet training issue that people have brought up (where they want to swap crews between ships), but at least it would let one's BuPers get at all those highly trained individuals manning radar stations in Nome.
John
Post by: jseah on June 05, 2011, 04:27:15 PM
but at least it would let one's BuPers get at all those highly trained individuals manning radar stations in Nome.I haven't seen "BuPer" outside of the Honorverse...
XD
Anyway, it strikes me that the first retooling of a new shipyard is free and instant. When retooling elsewhere takes a long long time.
Why is this? Either make first retooling take the usual tooling time (and allow SM instant retool), or add a de-tooling command to return a shipyard to "No class assigned".
Post by: sloanjh on June 05, 2011, 05:24:07 PM
Anyway, it strikes me that the first retooling of a new shipyard is free and instant. When retooling elsewhere takes a long long time.Because it's assumed that you know which class the SY will be building while you're building the SY, so you can build it already tooled. Admittedly there's a bit of an exploit there.... If Steve were to go with "1st retool costs just as much as any other", then I would advocate cutting SY build costs so that overall "tooled SY" construction time was roughly equal.
Why is this? Either make first retooling take the usual tooling time (and allow SM instant retool), or add a de-tooling command to return a shipyard to "No class assigned".
John
Post by: jseah on June 06, 2011, 04:02:48 AM
Because it's assumed that you know which class the SY will be building while you're building the SY, so you can build it already tooled.HA!
I never know what use my shipyards are for when I build them. I just eyeball my production numbers and estimate how much shipyard I need to fill up the spare planetside production power.
Besides, isn't it a major problem when I do things like build a naval yard, go "hmm, I have nothing I need this yard for actually", give it a continual expansion order and forget about it for six years.
Come back later and find a use for it maybe. I have one yard building up for a destroyer design (but will need to retool), and one freshly built yard I have no idea what it will do. Probably going to build cruisers (16ktons) or something.
Post by: sloanjh on June 06, 2011, 08:32:44 AM
HA!
I never know what use my shipyards are for when I build them. I just eyeball my production numbers and estimate how much shipyard I need to fill up the spare planetside production power.
Besides, isn't it a major problem when I do things like build a naval yard, go "hmm, I have nothing I need this yard for actually", give it a continual expansion order and forget about it for six years.
Come back later and find a use for it maybe. I have one yard building up for a destroyer design (but will need to retool), and one freshly built yard I have no idea what it will do. Probably going to build cruisers (16ktons) or something.
That's the exploit. If it were done the other way, then you'd run into the opposite problem when you did know the class for which the SY was intended (hence my suggestion of cutting the construction cost). IIRC, when Steve put this stuff in, he mentioned that the Soviets used to build specific SY complexes for specific warship designs.
John
Post by: Charlie Beeler on June 07, 2011, 08:02:44 AM
Post by: LtWarhound on June 07, 2011, 07:34:50 PM
Reference discussion thread 'Minelaying to Victory, or Jump Point Assaults are hard?'http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,3703.0.html (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,3703.0.html)
Post by: symon on June 08, 2011, 09:27:17 AM
Post by: Laurence on June 09, 2011, 09:33:28 AM
Add a new HQ unit to the ground forces - CorpHQ with the commander being Lt General. Immediate subordinate units are DivHQ's.
I'd like a Battalion HQ as well, to command the Marine Companies. :)
Post by: jseah on June 10, 2011, 03:27:33 AM
Firing a missile at a target tells you how much ECM it has.
Except that you actually have to order the ships to open fire.
ECM should reveal it's strength when you target the ship.
------------------------------------------
Jammer targeting missiles:
ECM and ECCM should get an EM signature. (and firecons if they don't already have it)
When a firecon targets a ship, it projects an EM signature.
If the target ship has an ECM, the ECM projects an EM signature.
If the target ship has ECM and the firing ship has an ECCM, the ECCM projects an EM signature.
Missiles with EM sensors can locate these and home in on ships with active ECM.
Post by: sloanjh on June 11, 2011, 11:18:51 AM
1) For each class, be able to set a "desired crew training bonus" (-10% to 34% range). Those above that crew training range go to the bottom of the auto-assign list when crew training is the deciding attribute. The idea here is that I want my best officers to go to the ships with a -10% bonus rather than those with a 34% bonus (where they won't do any good). At present, the order of assignment within a class seems to be alphabetical based on name - this leads to the best ships getting the best captains (a bad thing). The reason this needs to be class-specific is that cargo ships or oilers (military) ships will have a different level than warships.
As an alternative, assign captains to ships based on a reverse-training order, i.e. lowest training gets the best captain.
2) Have a "fill empty berths" checkbox that will assign an officer to an un-commanded ship, even if he has 0 crew training rating. The idea here is that I want my skill-less officers to get on the job training, where the bonus might bump up to 25. These captains should go to the ships that least need a good captain, e.g. conscript classes or those above the threshold in suggestion #1.
3) Have a "Prioritize Staff Positions" checkbox that does what it says. At present, it looks like staff positions are at the bottom of the barrel when assigning officers - I often end up with Intel officers with a 0% intel rating, while there's some other officer with a 30% rating that was assigned a ship because he had a crew rating of 25.
At present, every time I do an officer reassignment wave, I have to do a LOT of rearranging. The suggestions above would knock out a large percentage of what I'm spending my time on.
John
Post by: ExChairman on June 13, 2011, 12:46:05 AM
Post by: Bgreman on June 14, 2011, 06:02:12 PM
Details:
hxxp: aurora2. pentarch. org/index. php/topic,3714. msg36169. html#msg36169
On a different note:
Add the ability to tractor wrecks and drag them to colonies. Salvagers working a wreck at a colony will deposit salvaged minerals/components in the planetary stockpile. Alternately allow shipyards to tear down wrecks, or PDC-based salvage modules (which I envision as a spaceport where small salvage shuttles are based. They fly up to the wreck in orbit, do some work, and fly their salvaged goods back down).
You could even have orbital habs manning more specialized salvaging modules.
Post by: Brian Neumann on June 19, 2011, 05:37:31 PM
Brian
Post by: sloanjh on June 19, 2011, 07:01:23 PM
Could you make the flag that says a planet produces ancient artifacts as a trade good be permanent. Currently when a planet which had a ruin on it is fully exploited the planet shows as importing artifacts instead of having them available for export. It just seems wierd to me that a planet with a ruined city (for example) would suddenly start importing artifacts when there should be a bunch over in the ruins. Even if everything has been salvaged that is useable there will lots of unusable stuff left after all.
Brian
Seconded.
John
Post by: Thiosk on June 19, 2011, 07:04:44 PM
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,3756.msg36270.html#msg36270
Post by: mavikfelna on June 20, 2011, 09:58:27 AM
Could you make the flag that says a planet produces ancient artifacts as a trade good be permanent. Currently when a planet which had a ruin on it is fully exploited the planet shows as importing artifacts instead of having them available for export. It just seems wierd to me that a planet with a ruined city (for example) would suddenly start importing artifacts when there should be a bunch over in the ruins. Even if everything has been salvaged that is useable there will lots of unusable stuff left after all.
Brian
It would also be nice if it didn't remove the notation from the information screen about who created the ruins and what level it started at. Once the ruins have been fully exploited everything relating to it disappears and that seems wrong.
--Mav
Post by: Peter Rhodan on June 20, 2011, 02:44:21 PM
you know - upgrade to 2.5 per FC for 2000
to 3 for 4000
etc etc
etc
Peter
Post by: x2yzh9 on June 20, 2011, 03:32:44 PM
Me and some other B12ers(I know at least one) Have thought that at least in the late game, increment processing gets extremely slow. We were hoping some optimization in the code could fix this?
Post by: Father Tim on June 20, 2011, 04:37:57 PM
What about adding a Financial Centre Upgrade path to the Research Tree
you know - upgrade to 2.5 per FC for 2000
to 3 for 4000
etc etc
etc
Peter
This is already covered by the increased wealth production research line, since Financial Centres generate the same amount of wealth as 1,000,000 population.
Post by: Thiosk on June 20, 2011, 10:37:54 PM
Post by: jseah on June 20, 2011, 11:33:54 PM
Currently, wealth is something like a limit on the amount of resources you can use at any one time. Given the 1:1 point ratio.
Hence I would like to see some additional ways to spend wealth. Like the ability to fund programs that affect how things work in an economy.
Would turn wealth from a measure of total expenditure into an actual resource.
eg.
Fiscal Stimulus (spend wealth to increase manufacturing sector % at expense of service sector, which decreases total available exports)
Childcare Schemes / Subsidized Parental Leave (spend wealth to increase population growth rate at expense of manufacturing efficiency)
Basic Income / Welfare Schemes (spend wealth to directly reduce political unrest, which returns once welfare stops)
Subsidize Immigration (pay civilian liners to move colonists to X planet. Works like contracting facilities)
Subsidize Private Sector (spend wealth to increase total available exports at expense of manufacturing efficiency)
Post by: Harmonica on June 21, 2011, 03:03:32 AM
(forum is messing up the link but I'm sure you can use it)
hxxp: i. imgur. com/TtVo1. png
Also, if it's possible, adding up and down arrows to the capacity % shown for each item in production would make adjusting the relative focuses much easier.
Post by: Marc420 on June 25, 2011, 03:32:04 PM
So, one suggestion would be that this Continual Constant Expansion mode could operate at some fraction of what could otherwise be constructed, in order to reflect the difficulties of working around an open and operating shipyard slips.
Another suggestion would be to
a) The shipyard capacity expansions that expand by a fixed amount go faster than the continual expansion. But they also close one or more slipways while they are working. I'd offer the player/admiral two options for doing upgrades.
1) Full shutdown. All the slipways of the shipyard are empty, and stay that way during the upgrade construction. This is the fastest form
of construction as the crews aren't having to work around anyone else and have full ability to just get in and do the job.
2) Rotating shutdown. One slipway at a time is closed for upgrades. Effectively, when this mode is selected, the number of slipways is
reduced by one. It can only be begun when this number or fewer slipways have ships in them. The time for the construction is the time to do one slipway, repeated for the number of slipways. Ex: a 4 slipway naval shipyard of 3,000 ton capacity wants to add 1000 tons per slipway. The number of slipways is temporarily reduced to 3, and the expansion can only begin when there are three or fewer ships in the slips. The time it takes is the (time to upgrade one slipway) x 4.
3)Then, you'd have the slowed down continual constant expansion from above as a still slower alternative, but one that occurs while the shipyard never misses a beat.
Adding new slipways can always be done without effecting the existing slipways.
Anyways, that's my $0. 02 on what I think shipyard expansions should look like. This would give choices to the player. If its peaceful, he might want to shut the whole yard down and upgrade it quickly. If he needs to be churning out warships while upgrading, he could pick either of the two slower options. Or, maybe risk the full shutdown, and fewer new ships in the short term, if they want to build bigger ships sooner in the longer term?
And while providing more interesting choices, it also feels a bit more realistic to someone who's worked around construction sites all his life and knows that working around something you have to keep operating is always slower and more of a pain than when you can just go dominate the site, build the stuff as fast as possible, and then leave.
Post by: sloanjh on June 25, 2011, 06:19:45 PM
Change the rate at which grade points (per capita) are added to a crew to something like:
Code: [Select]
gradePtsPerCapita += fractionOfAYearElapsed*CommanderTrainingRate*CommanderRank^2*sqrt(100)/sqrt(CrewSize);
In absolute crew grade points (i.e. per capita points * crew size), this would be:
Code: [Select]
gradePtsTotal += fractionOfAYearElapsed*CommanderTrainingRate*CommanderRank^2*sqrt(100)*sqrt(CrewSize);
The reason for this suggestion is that I just realized that an officer with, for example, a training rating of 300 brings a crew of 6 on a fighter from -10% grade bonus to 33% grade bonus in exactly the same time as it takes the same commander to train up a crew of 3000 on a BB. It seems like big crews should be (somewhat) harder to train to a "crack" level than small crews. This led me down the following path of reasoning:
* If it took 500x (the ratio of crew sizes) as long to train a BB crew as a fighter crew, then training would be broken. (Note that by "train", I mean crew grade, not fleet training throughout this post.)
* Then I realized that the BB would tend to have a much more senior commander than the fighter, so if senior officers were better at training than junior officers then that would cut the effect. If we assume a typical BB commander will be 3-4 ranks above a typical fighter commander, then by squaring we get a factor of 9-16, which brings the training time ratio down to roughly 30-50x longer for the BB.
* That's still to big a gap, so my next thought was that the difficulty in training shouldn't be linear in the crew size. The obvious thing to do is to soften the effect by using the sqrt of the crew size. For the BB example, sqrt(3000/6) is a bit over 20, so the training time ratio is now in the range of 1.4-2.5, which seems about right. It's a big enough effect to be noticed, but small enough that it shouldn't break the game.
* Throwing a sqrt into the crewsize will probably mess up the current rate for typical ships, so stick in a normalization factor (sqrt(100)) so that a LCMDR on a "typical" LCMDR command sees no change in training rate. I chose 100 crew for a typical command since that's what my 1000 ton FAC/corvettes tend to run.
In terms of effect on game mechanics, I suspect this would make it easier to train up fighter/fac squadrons, since a low-rank/training officer will train them faster. I suspect it will also push players towards using higher ranking officers on bigger ships, since they won't want that 16x for an R4 wasted on a tiny crew. At present there's no game mechanics pushing players in this direction. The thing I'm not clear on is how this could interact with fleet/TF commands (to push ultra-high ranking officers into desk jobs) - maybe add a factor of (AdmiralRank/3)^2 (and a penalty for lots of ships?) to the fleet-training rate. The other thing I like about the idea is that it gives a game-mechanics benefit to higher ranking officers. At present, there's nothing (other than role-playing) to prevent one from setting all classes to requiring LCDR, in which case the only benefit of high ranking officers is that they can command fleets at R3.
John
Post by: symon on June 25, 2011, 06:57:10 PM
Post by: Steve Walmsley on June 27, 2011, 04:44:10 PM
Currently, while there is a jump transit recovery delay on sensors and fire control, there isn't a delay on firing weapons, launching parasites or transiting a jump point. This allows an abusive tactic of minelaying immediately after a transit followed by the minelayers retreating back through the jump point, resulting in little or no damage to the attackers while leaving the defenders vulnerable and likely destroyed. A less abusive but still invalid tactic of a scout immediately fleeing back through the jump point once it finds defenders waiting has been seen done by NPRs as well.
Reference discussion thread 'Minelaying to Victory, or Jump Point Assaults are hard?'http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,3703.0.html (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,3703.0.html)
Firing of weapons, jump drives and parasites are all affected by transit in v5.50
Steve
Post by: Thiosk on June 28, 2011, 02:38:16 AM
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_zJBQQ1qXfEo/STnfkjiuFnI/AAAAAAAAAP8/q5RqSlYcLz0/s400/historyerase.jpg)
Signals the start of an apocalypse. Large alien fleet appears at a random end of a warp chain and begins moving with modest haste in the general direction of your homeworld. Invades and devours your populations on the way.
I'm thinking star-swarm (or tyranid-like) though I suppose any suitably large and belligerent alien fleet will do.
I see it not unlike setting off disasters in your sim city games.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_4nzgPbHlNo4/SeU58HpC9dI/AAAAAAAAEy4/w1cQ9GBsKEE/s1600/planetstrike-terrain-02.jpg)
Post by: sidew on June 28, 2011, 08:07:49 AM
I like to see a early star frigate with some 402mm turrets scrapped from WWII Iowa-class BB and conventional engines ;D
Post by: mikew on June 29, 2011, 03:11:33 AM
If is possible, please add pre-transnewtonian weapons, like old fashioned artillery, autocannons and gatling guns. . .
I like to see a early star frigate with some 402mm turrets scrapped from WWII Iowa-class BB and conventional engines ;D
Your early star frigate is going to be very heavy- each 16" gun (not turret) weighed in at over 120 tons. The turret assembly to include the guns would be well over 1000 tons.
Mike
Post by: Hawkeye on June 29, 2011, 03:44:23 AM
Even the Rheinmetall 120mm L55 gun only reaches a shell-speed of about 1.75 km/s, or an Aurora-Range of a bit less than 9 km.
Post by: UnLimiTeD on June 29, 2011, 05:42:13 AM
Given that a Gauss Rifle would reach a shell speed close enough to light speed to calculate it as such, we can simplify this a little.
Still, it is problematic with the aurora distances, I mean, I don't think theres a calculation for being closer than 10k?
On the other hand, you could calculate them as mass drivers, and fire very slow projectiles that hit a distant planet a half year later.
For propulsion, in space it would likely be case-less shells with a rocket component, and thus reach a lot higher speeds.
Still not enough to matter.
If we ever get the option to develop and specify equipment for ground troops, this might do a bit, though.
Post by: Hawkeye on June 29, 2011, 06:23:49 AM
I just went over to Atomic Rocket and according to that site, an Iowa´s 16 inch shell delivers a energy of 5.3 x 10^8 Jouls or the equivalelt of 127 kg of TNT (including 54kg of high explosive).
Just for comparison, 1 gramm at 75% C will deliver 11 Kilo-Tons of TNT.
Damage for the 16 inch gun sure doesn´t look as good as before now.
As I was talking about muzzle velocity, atmospheric drag doesn´t come into play by a large margin (yes, there won´t be air in the barrel, but I don´t think that air will slow the shell down by a lot)
Rocket assisted shells are a good point, though.
Even then, lets assume it doubles the velocity, we just hit 3500 m/s (for the 120mm) , then we just hit a 5-second-range of 17.5 km and the more mass we dedicate to the rocket, the less mass is left for the actual shell.
To get at 10.000km range, the shell would have to go at 2.000 km/s, which is a factor of 1.000 compared to what we have today. I have a hard time imagining this kind of performance without actual Trans-Newton technology :)
As a weapon for planetary bombardement, they might be viable
Post by: jseah on July 12, 2011, 01:29:34 AM
Fools sensors at 100-ECM % range into increasing the Cross-Section, Thermal and EM signature of the ship.
- Makes shield and engine readings unreliable
- Can change the "apparent" class of a ship to a design you have (only for ships that have higher or equal TH/EM signatures)
Meant to be used to "cloak" ships by hiding them among similar classes.
Eg. concealing a jump ship by making everything else appear as big (or bigger) than it. Make ships have false active sensors to hide command ships.
Post by: forgottenlord on July 12, 2011, 01:42:16 AM
Another one I'd love to disable is "found a jump point" interrupt.
Post by: Father Tim on July 12, 2011, 02:14:10 AM
Post by: forgottenlord on July 12, 2011, 11:48:41 AM
Quote from: Father Tim link=topic=2828. msg36903#msg36903 date=1310454850
Cancel the orders (including default & conditional orders) for your out-of-fuel ships and it stops being an interrupt.
Yeah, but then I have to reset up all of the conditional orders
Post by: Jacob/Lee on July 12, 2011, 07:14:39 PM
So... Many... Time stops... *shudder*
Post by: UnLimiTeD on July 13, 2011, 07:53:22 AM
Though it would be nice if it just continued if no player race was affected.
So seconded.
Post by: Dutchling on July 13, 2011, 08:21:59 AM
Post by: Beersatron on July 13, 2011, 09:15:17 AM
Unseen NPR combat not stopping time advancement would be nice if it is possible.
So... Many... Time stops... *shudder*
If it was possible for Steve to abstract the combat then I am sure he would have done so already.
While I too would love less interrupts, the reason the game is so great is because it does not abstract these kind of things like 99% of all other games do.
What Steve could maybe do is take the PPV of all ships involved in the conflict and use that as a weight on a combat roll. Although PPV probably isn't enough, would also need to take into account the shields, armor and speed of the ships and then the detection range of sensors and the fire range of the weapons.
If I get to a point were the NPCs are obviously doing something then I just switch auto-increments on and go read a book whilst making a cup of tea.
Personal preference of course!
Post by: forgottenlord on July 13, 2011, 11:29:27 AM
Post by: Charlie Beeler on July 13, 2011, 12:35:01 PM
So this is almost certainly partly because of my bad design for my geology vessels, but having gotten one stuck some 26Gm out or 231 days out (when it finally ran out of fuel) on a 416 day tank, having a detection for fuel required to get to next destination + fuel required to get from destination to nearest tanker/colony and generating a (non-interrupt) warning based on that would probably help prevent such frustrating incidents.
Conditional orders for refueling from tankers should be used with strategicly placed tankers solve this issue nicely.
Post by: Erik L on July 13, 2011, 01:00:45 PM
Conditional orders for refueling from tankers should be used with strategicly placed tankers solve this issue nicely.
Experience will teach you to build FARPs. I usually build them in systems 3 jumps from home along the chains. Further FARPs are built 3 jumps from the previous ring, etc.
And a FARP can be anything that supplies. A couple of fuel harvesters marked as tankers make a good fuel resupply point.
Post by: forgottenlord on July 13, 2011, 02:33:29 PM
Quote from: Charlie Beeler link=topic=2828. msg36959#msg36959 date=1310578501
Conditional orders for refueling from tankers should be used with strategicly placed tankers solve this issue nicely.
Conditional Order of 30% fuel and head back to refuel set. I've now had 5 different geology vessels - all with that condition set - run out of fuel way out of range - and as I indicated, this particular ship decided to get caught outside it's actual effective range. I actually suspect there's a bug as the number of ships that were throwing off warning of low fuel (<10%) while seeming far too close to the object they just scanned for them to have been able to have that problem is driving me nuts (I think it may have something to do with a set refuel order somewhere further along killing the condition since there's already a refuel order set. Why is a refuel order set, you might ask? Because the geology vessels are telling me they can only find 3 objects instead of 5). And so we come back to my point of a warning being very useful.
As I was writing this, a different approach came to me: next to each of the listed orders, show, in brackets, how much fuel would remain after the order was completed. I had a group of cargo ships running infrastructure between Earth and Mars and forgot completely to set a refuel order in the middle. I don't want to put a conditional order in because then it'll clear the remaining orders and make it so I have to clear it so having a refueling order is beneficial. Ignoring the fact that an Earth-Mars route is relatively trivial to stick a refueling order in, if I have a longer journey, having something to indicate "hey, don't forget about fuel" would help in the planning of your overall route.
Post by: Dutchling on July 15, 2011, 10:03:17 AM
Also, what might have been the problem for your ships: I think conditional orders are only checked when a ship is done with an order (in your case: surveying) so if he gets to 30% fuel after 1km since the last survey, it still has to fly all the way to the next body and survey it for the conditional order to kick in. Which might be too late. I have this a lot lately. A lot of my survey ships give me those interrupt warning for low fuel while they should have refueled a long time ago. The current order of all these ships was just surveying the next point/body.
Post by: James Patten on July 15, 2011, 11:08:16 AM
I think what happens is that the movement happens, then the conditional orders are evaluated. What invariably happens is that a ship is at 31%, it goes through a day's maneuvering or 5 days maneuvering, and now it's down to 20%, time to go back for refueling but now we're too far away to make it.
A conditional order of 50% fuel would be very handy for FACs and fighters - because if you get to the halfway point, it's time to go back!
Post by: forgottenlord on July 15, 2011, 11:54:27 AM
I've had numerous fuel issues with my survey vessels, usually because I use FAC-sized ships.
I think what happens is that the movement happens, then the conditional orders are evaluated. What invariably happens is that a ship is at 31%, it goes through a day's maneuvering or 5 days maneuvering, and now it's down to 20%, time to go back for refueling but now we're too far away to make it.
A conditional order of 50% fuel would be very handy for FACs and fighters - because if you get to the halfway point, it's time to go back!
Doubt it. My geology ships use about 7% per 30 days and as I said, there seems to be an issue where they're throwing warnings below 10% where they haven't really begun their trip home.
Good to know I'm not alone in having an issue.
Post by: ZimRathbone on July 16, 2011, 01:03:29 PM
I've had numerous fuel issues with my survey vessels, usually because I use FAC-sized ships.
I think what happens is that the movement happens, then the conditional orders are evaluated. What invariably happens is that a ship is at 31%, it goes through a day's maneuvering or 5 days maneuvering, and now it's down to 20%, time to go back for refueling but now we're too far away to make it.
A conditional order of 50% fuel would be very handy for FACs and fighters - because if you get to the halfway point, it's time to go back!
What version are you on? I'm on 5.4.2 and it DOES have a "Fuel less than 50%" condition (its the first one after "No Condition" in the drop down)
Post by: James Patten on July 16, 2011, 06:48:08 PM
Perhaps I should switch to 5.4 and try to play a long game so that we can new versions out of Steve? ;D
Post by: wilddog5 on July 22, 2011, 02:36:07 AM
when having a lot if colonies in the pop + produce screen it can get very hard to find the col you want.
my solution
shrink the list slightly and add a dropdown list under the race selection list for systems
this would also help with multi empire game as to select the col you want, you would select the race, then the system and the list would only have the cols in the system selected displayed for easy finding
Post by: Mel Vixen on July 22, 2011, 08:52:13 AM
Code: [Select]
[-]Sector Alpha ->
[-]Sol ->
Earth
Mars
Titan
([+] Jupiter moon colonies)
[+]Tau ceti
[+]Bernards star
[+]Sector Beta ->
[+]Sector Gama ->
Some filters to hide certain collonies would be a way too for example by hiding any col with less then 50 Mil. Pop. Bonuspoints if you can add additional parameters say 50mil pop and ruins. This would also work nicely with a dropdown.
Post by: voknaar on July 23, 2011, 05:45:52 AM
Post by: sloanjh on July 24, 2011, 07:55:47 PM
I've got a 20HS armored Beam-FAC design that I was just fiddling with. The present design is armor-6, with 8 columns for a total of 48 hits that can be absorbed. (The armor is Laminate Composite.) The design window, however, says that the armor strength is 54 - 6 more than the hits it will absorb. I understand what's going on - Aurora is calculating the depth of armor to be 6.something then rounding down. If my "armor 6" ship actually had 6 columns of depth 7 and 2 columns of depth 6, then I'd actually get hit absorbtion for all the 54 boxes of armor I'm paying for :). The extra bumps can be uniformly distributed among the columns.
I understand that what's going on under the covers is that, for heavily armored ships, the number of columns in the innermost layers should actually be smaller. But trying to do book-keeping on that would be a nightmare - this method is much simpler.
"But wait", you say. "That means that a weapon with penetration of 7 won't always stream atmosphere on the first hit." I think that's ok - one can technobabble those as oblique hits which see a greater depth of armor and don't penetrate; kind of like hitting the front slope of a tank. Only a dead-center hit on an armor-6 spherical ball of armor can be expected to have to penetrate only 6 layers.
In the grand scheme of things this is not a very big deal - all I can plead is that it's bugging me :)
John
Post by: jseah on July 25, 2011, 01:51:32 AM
Extra "bumps" on armor in the armor so that the total number of hits absorbed by armor is equal to the "Armor Strength" box on the F5 window.Seconded. I like this.
<...>
John
Post by: voknaar on July 25, 2011, 09:06:40 PM
Post by: ardem on July 26, 2011, 02:51:16 AM
It would mean more decisions for the player when deciding to conquer a planet and take the population or wiping out the planet and killing its populace.
Post by: Charlie Beeler on July 26, 2011, 07:55:22 AM
I would like to see more pre-space civilizations on planets that are in the blue zone, I think we should encounter these civilization more regularly at different stage of their evolution, rather then planets with a probably for of planet and animals but not much else.
It would mean more decisions for the player when deciding to conquer a planet and take the population or wiping out the planet and killing its populace.
Last time I checked Steve had not added conventional NPR's to the game, nor have I encountered any.
Post by: Mel Vixen on July 26, 2011, 11:23:26 AM
Post by: ardem on July 26, 2011, 08:08:34 PM
Last time I checked Steve had not added conventional NPR's to the game, nor have I encountered any.I have run into a race that did not have spacecraft at all, the tech was very limited, so I had assumed it was in.
So if pre-spacecraft alien do not exist can we please add
Post by: Beersatron on July 26, 2011, 11:46:31 PM
I have run into a race that did not have spacecraft at all, the tech was very limited, so I had assumed it was in.
So if pre-spacecraft alien do not exist can we please add
there are NPRs that have only population and low tech infantry/armour. They have no tech and no construction points to build or mine anything. Think Steve put them in so people could get a taste of ground combat and planetary subjugation.
Post by: ardem on July 27, 2011, 10:26:23 PM
Post by: ardem on July 28, 2011, 07:38:38 PM
Currently we can put automated mines, set survey teams down on 700 degree planets
I think we should have somewhere you can only do this if you build sufficient tech capable, I suggest a temperate based material science addition to biology, which would then make it a more useful research field.
You start of with current ability to withstand cold and heat, and then research further into the field which will unlock planet access to inner and outer planets
Post by: waresky on July 29, 2011, 05:54:33 AM
New suggestion is another research line, it could be put under biology/material sciences
Currently we can put automated mines, set survey teams down on 700 degree planets
I think we should have somewhere you can only do this if you build sufficient tech capable, I suggest a temperate based material science addition to biology, which would then make it a more useful research field.
You start of with current ability to withstand cold and heat, and then research further into the field which will unlock planet access to inner and outer planets
Same as many good strategy games like as SpaceEmpires..u cant setup colony everywhere before completion of research in right field
Apologize my funny english:)
hope am understandable..
Am know little English..only few Admiral Command "guys! we never fails!"..."Gunny! open fire when show an UFO!"..and so on..
"breack the glass in case of fire". ive put onto ships wall-near ships windows...(ghgh)
Srry..am a CrazyItalianOne
Post by: ardem on July 29, 2011, 09:18:22 PM
The biggest area which is a minor disappointment with aurora is there ground combat phase, there is very little interaction you can do with your units. Now understanding that creating something as advanced as the space game is out of the question 1) Because it then would detract from the main points and 2) The code that would be need is another game in itself.
So I been thinking of some idea to enhance ground combat without making it too complexed.
Rock paper scissors is the most simplistic strategy game that I know of, many games revolve around this concept as well as many life principles.
My idea is to add simple elements in the ground combat, the could enhance or detract from a ground combat point phase.
A SOE for ground combat, this drop down box could have against each unit, or simplified even more against each HQ a number of choices such as.
- Mobile Operations
- Static Defence
- Bombardment Operations
Idea 1: Variations so not to go with the heavy armoured or marine unit every time
These choices will enhance and decrease a unit attacking or defensive abilities, and different units have different amplifiers. For instance straight leg infantry may have a 2.0x on static defence for defence and .5 x on attack. Meaning if the opposing unit was to attack then you could see greater losses on a defensive stage. But if the alternate unit was on bombardment operations then you would a lower defence rating and a high attack rating.
Idea 2: Rock Paper Scissors
You could also look at it another way and simplify it even still and compare the opposing forces strategy and apply modifiers based on this.
Where Mobile operations beat Bombardment, Bombardment beats Static Defence, and Static beat Mobile Operations.
Idea 3: Battle Card Layout
I am not sure how the battles are currently worked out between two opposing sides, but to me it seems like a point stack, I would suggest something a little different.
A simple card game style process, a brigade attack a brigade ever 5 days, each have 4 units, the computer assigns the three best defensive units for attacking units based on the TOE in the line and hold one in reserve, the opposing force lines up its units in a similar fashion. The battle then takes place and wounds are best on the attack and defence of the various units.
If a player only has two units in his front line, then 1/2 the attacking or defensive points from the unit beside it add to the total of the middle unit battle.
You can amplify this with multiple brigades, if there is only one brigade left on one side and ten on the other, it still is a brigade v brigade fight. Because in reality regardless on number a small unit can only hold the same frontage it is attacked on, the difference will be they will not be reinforce and will eventually dissolve by numbers.
I really hope Steve read this cause with a little abstract programming around this it could really make colony attacks a little more exciting. A combination of the three ideas would be best, but even one of the three idea would enhance the ground combat phase
I would also like to see a new unit added which is Air support, which takes as much space as a engineer brigade has a low defence but huge attack.
Post by: Thiosk on July 30, 2011, 12:54:16 AM
My suggestion for GU training is to make different units require different numbers of ground combat centers. Especially since they can be transported in the upcoming patch. Replacement units... 1 center. Garrisons, 3 centers. And so on and so forth until you start needing 15 or 20 centers to do the fancy uber units. Maybe? You guys can fight it out. You know what else I want? TITANS. Yeah. Forum is on a warhammer kick this week so, yeah, TITANS. plod plod plod. Build em in shipyards for ground combat purposes.
I don't like air support, though, because if you have boots on the ground, you probably have air superiority already. And if you don't have air superiority, the other guys do, and that means your air units can't take off without getting pew-pew'd from orbit. On the other hand, one might consider that a heavy assault unit already has some gear needed for heavy assault... helos, etcetera. Maybe? I don't know.
Post by: Hawkeye on July 30, 2011, 09:41:00 AM
On the reasons to build other units than HA/Marine.
Starting from a conventional start (which is my usual game start) it takes ages to build an army capable of invading an alien homeworld (as it should be)
building only HA/M would at least double, probably tripple that time. Also, for holding that planet once captured, garrison/mobile infantry are a hell of a lot more cost efficient, as only the defense combat factor counts for garrison duty
It´s quite simple. No-one has enough money to garrison every rock in the empire with first-line elite troops. That´s what your regular guys, i.e. mostely garrison, backed up by some mobile infantry, is for.
In an emergency, they hold the line until your heavy hitters can be brought in. Those are your HA/M Divisions, sitting in a hub-system, preferably with their transports and some escorts in orbit, ready to go on a moments notice to bring the hammer down.
Post by: ardem on July 31, 2011, 04:23:09 AM
Take your point of organic armour, but I was thinking of the air support for the third cog in the wheel which was bombardment.
Post by: jseah on August 02, 2011, 03:03:49 AM
Gottcha, ended up transfering fuel to get it back, its a shame you cannot tow ships with engines but no fuel, not that its a big deal to transfer fuel just wish the option was there.Ships that are being tractored should have the option of turning their engines off.
Allows attachment of commercial engine tugs to military/gunboat engined ships to save fuel.
Post by: Erik L on August 03, 2011, 04:06:28 PM
Post by: HKZ8 on August 04, 2011, 07:26:47 AM
Therefore, I propose this feature in order to have a quick battle, where the AI would handle the "enemy exercise fleet", a mirror image of the player fleet, to develop strategies and tactics, without actually sending the fleet in harm's way to find out, much like navies do, nowadays.
This feature could be expanded to include a "best enemy configuration known" tickbox, where known enemy (or other alien encountered designs) could be used as the OPFOR, even having an entire enemy fleet created that would be used that way. The point is to be able to fight against whomever the player chooses in theory, finding out what to look for or guard against without losing any ships. I think that the actual implementation of such a feature would be easy (in the case of duplication of the selected player fleet) or difficult, (because then the game would have to keep track of every enemy design and present them to be chosen as the OPFOR fleet, however, I do think that the game holds them already, therefore I think it can be done). Other choices would be the system where the sim battle would be fought (of every explored system that the empire (or other name that the players' state would have) has reached so far) and maybe a specific location within that system.
I think that this would be a powerful tool that the player could employ to understand precisely the strengths and weaknesses of his fleet and plan accordingly, so that when combat occurs, his losses will be minimal while his performance optimal (because he will have been able to have tested everything before hand, if he so chooses).
Post by: waresky on August 04, 2011, 09:01:47 AM
Hi there team. One feature I think would be very useful for any Aurora player who has created a fleet that hasn't yet been battletested would be a tab or maybe an option that would be called "War game exercises" whereupon the player would select a fleet that would then be duplicated, with the one just created an opposing force that would fight against the player's fleet. Why this? Because, it would offer a chance to for the player to test his strategies and develop new ones without the necessity of fighting against an alien fleet and understand what tactics work and what don't, because by the time the player meets the invaders and the swarm without having his fleet battletested, it might be too late.
Therefore, I propose this feature in order to have a quick battle, where the AI would handle the "enemy exercise fleet", a mirror image of the player fleet, to develop strategies and tactics, without actually sending the fleet in harm's way to find out, much like navies do, nowadays.
This feature could be expanded to include a "best enemy configuration known" tickbox, where known enemy (or other alien encountered designs) could be used as the OPFOR, even having an entire enemy fleet created that would be used that way. The point is to be able to fight against whomever the player chooses in theory, finding out what to look for or guard against without losing any ships. I think that the actual implementation of such a feature would be easy (in the case of duplication of the selected player fleet) or difficult, (because then the game would have to keep track of every enemy design and present them to be chosen as the OPFOR fleet, however, I do think that the game holds them already, therefore I think it can be done).
I think that this would be a powerful tool that the player could employ to understand precisely the strengths and weaknesses of his fleet and plan accordingly, so that when combat occurs, his losses will be minimal while his performance optimal (because he will have been able to have tested everything before hand, if he so chooses).
Hi and welcome.
This "idea" and nice request are many time posted here..:)
Steve never follow our imput about this:)
but..we can ask everytime:))) eheh
Post by: Erik L on August 04, 2011, 12:22:04 PM
Post by: Herode on August 04, 2011, 02:05:48 PM
But the main reason why I'm posting here is about the "manage shipyard" tab (F2 window) : I'm beginning my second game so I don't have a lot of shipyards (4, BTW) and I just want to link them to some starting designs. So I click on the first line in the grid edit, say shipyard#2, then I click on the desired values (task retool, select design, etc). And now, I inadvertantly click on the gray empty space of the grid edit (that's because I'm a compulsive clicker). The selection silently moves to : the last line of the grid edit (say : shipyard#4) + the first line of the ship class dropdown list (and of course it's not the ship class I wanted to select). As it has been silent, I'm not aware of the evil deeds of the GUI and I click on the 'set activity' button.
:-\
My suggestion is : do not change change the selected values when a poor guy clicks on the empty part of the grid control !
I realize this can be kinda difficult - depending on framework stuff - but ita minus malum habet rationem boni, uti minus bonum habet rationem mali. At least that's what G.W.Leibniz said and he was a cool guy indeed.
Post by: Jacob/Lee on August 05, 2011, 12:22:45 AM
"WHY THANK YOU INTEL OFFICER, I KNOW THERE ARE 5 SHIPS STUCK THERE NOW SHUT THE HELL UP SO I CAN GET THE FUEL TANKER OUT THERE.
GOOD GOD."
Post by: Erik L on August 05, 2011, 01:52:35 AM
Research labs generate scientists.
GF Training Facilities generate ground commanders.
Maybe Sector Commands generate administrators.
Post by: waresky on August 05, 2011, 03:04:38 AM
If there isn't, there needs to be a way to stop certain messages from ending time increments, for example I have 5 freighters stuck at the edge of a system and it takes forever for a rescue ship to get there to refuel them due to the messages.
"WHY THANK YOU INTEL OFFICER, I KNOW THERE ARE 5 SHIPS STUCK THERE NOW SHUT THE HELL UP SO I CAN GET THE FUEL TANKER OUT THERE.
GOOD GOD."
+1
:)..
many times ive shoot toward'em from my new Missile Base Class:
"Kill'em All Newbee Ships's Officers OnBoard a Stucked Ships Hell Earth Missile Base"
Post by: Cassaralla on August 05, 2011, 03:05:00 AM
Fortunately I spotted that my new battlecruisers had a plethora of launchers and nothing to direct them with before I retooled a yard.
Post by: Erik L on August 05, 2011, 03:28:41 AM
Officers assigned to this would be exempt from surplus. This should also not be included in auto assignments.
Post by: waresky on August 05, 2011, 06:01:10 AM
Please please please fix the tab orders on forms. It's frustrating for us mostly keyboard users to try and figure out where our focus is when we tab.
+++++++1
Post by: Charlie Beeler on August 05, 2011, 07:27:47 AM
If there isn't, there needs to be a way to stop certain messages from ending time increments, for example I have 5 freighters stuck at the edge of a system and it takes forever for a rescue ship to get there to refuel them due to the messages.
"WHY THANK YOU INTEL OFFICER, I KNOW THERE ARE 5 SHIPS STUCK THERE NOW SHUT THE HELL UP SO I CAN GET THE FUEL TANKER OUT THERE.
GOOD GOD."
Remove the offending task groups movement orders.
Post by: Jacob/Lee on August 05, 2011, 12:05:11 PM
Remove the offending task groups movement orders.Yeah, I just realized that after posting.
Post by: voknaar on August 05, 2011, 09:09:04 PM
Now on to the suggestion. I'd love to see Electronic Hardening play more of a role in Aurora so it could be expanded to also help systems recover faster from Jump Transit effects. Jump Drives could also have a section added to allow for electronic hardening to be built into the drive. Electronic Hardening could reduce the effects of Jump Transits by 5-10 secs per tech level built into the effected component with say a 50% improvement to Jump Drives, provided they used the Squadron Transit command.
As it stands Electronic Hardening is a virtually useless technology simply because it is limited to protection against the almost never used Microwave weapons. Microwaves aren't used by AI to my knowledge and as such protection is only necessary in the event the player creates more than one player controlled empire with one deploying the use of microwave weapons. My general thinking is Electronic Hardening should reduce the effects just because it is implied by its name. It also saves creating a whole new type of tech for drives and electronic systems to recover faster. As it is the time it takes to recover from sensor blindness is OK already my sole issue is now there are hard limits to how soon/fast a ship can jump into and out. I know it has been a powerful tactic to jump in and out of a hotspot which has had loop holes in it allowing deployment of mines and fighters but that is fixed. So allowing a tech to reduce the effects which comes at a cost and cannot become as powerful as it was before the patch, could bring some use to the tactic of jump point raiding without breaking game balance.
TL;DR This isn't a complaint but more of a request to make Electronic Hardening a more useful tech while giving the player the option to nerf the mechanics of one jump in a time period, without adding more and more techs to research. :-*
Post by: Erik L on August 05, 2011, 09:11:58 PM
Post by: sloanjh on August 06, 2011, 07:32:11 AM
In 5.50+ JumpPoint assaults/harassment is now no longer viable due to the changes preventing another jump while suffering the effects of a recent successful jump transit. This is good but now presents a new challenge to overcome. For me I find myself thinking "all or none" as far as sending the wrath of the god emperor goes. Because sending only a small force to "poke" the defence capability's on the otherside will strand them as well as blind them from returning fire if otherside is guarded. So sending a overwhelming force all in one go hopefully to spread out and soak damage is probably a good thing to help endure until systems recover.
This (stranding) is a bug. The jump engines should only be shut down for ~30 seconds or so for a squadron transit - they are supposed to come back online when your sensors do. I assume Steve will be fixing it for 5.52.
John
Post by: Charlie Beeler on August 06, 2011, 10:34:50 AM
I'd like to see military jump engines have less of a lag time than civilian. Presumably, the military version are hardened to the effects (somewhat).
A simple way to accomplish this would be to limit squadron transit to military jump engines only. I'm not sure that this would be a good solution though.
Post by: Charlie Beeler on August 06, 2011, 10:46:27 AM
In 5.50+ JumpPoint assaults/harassment is now no longer viable due to the changes preventing another jump while suffering the effects of a recent successful jump transit. This is good but now presents a new challenge to overcome. For me I find myself thinking "all or none" as far as sending the wrath of the god emperor goes. Because sending only a small force to "poke" the defence capability's on the otherside will strand them as well as blind them from returning fire if otherside is guarded. So sending a overwhelming force all in one go hopefully to spread out and soak damage is probably a good thing to help endure until systems recover.
<snip>
Granted post transit effects for jump engines have a segnificant bug currently, assaults are still viable. There is a tech that I don't see many people posting jumpship designs taking advantage of, max squadron jump radius. It doesn't take a major investment to have you squadron radius outside of effective beam range of the jump point. It does require that each task group include a jump ship and leaves the assaulting force a bit scattered, but that is not neccessarily an unviable condition. And once the jump engine bug is fixed the delay will only be 11-30 seconds just like sensors. (currently don't know is weapons are also bugged).
Post by: Herode on August 07, 2011, 01:57:42 AM
Number of messages to display, view, etc. : most of the settings are not saved when the window is closed. Not a big deal, of course, but ... (I mostly use the "number of messages", btw).
Post by: user-unknown on August 07, 2011, 03:51:17 PM
Also, being able to edit the race image and flag for NPR races in spacemaster mode would be quite nice for roleplaying purposes :)
Post by: Jacob/Lee on August 11, 2011, 07:32:32 PM
Simply, I ask that you splice "Officer Updates" to several messages, like when an officer's skills increase or similar, I.E. there would be "Officer Resigned" and "Officer Skill" etc. etc.
A less likely suggestion, Political Reliability should have a separate message too. I don't really care if an officer has made friends with a powerful cutthroat businessman and his political reliability increased.
Post by: ardem on August 11, 2011, 11:28:14 PM
To me the most annoying update is the unrest update, would rather see this tabulated once a month, then every increment. Or if military has suppressed the update then not at all. And to turn it off completely is an opening for disaster you cannot win on that one.
Post by: chrislocke2000 on August 12, 2011, 06:00:04 AM
So say 0-50% pretty easy, say twice as fast as today
51-75% same training speed as today
75 - 85% twice as long
85 -90% three times as long
90-100% only gained from combat expertise - ie crew bonuses from combat add to both ship bonus and task force bonus
For all ships less then 100% trained, gains as a result of combat experience also add to TF training.
Post by: Thiosk on August 12, 2011, 12:45:33 PM
I was thinking that non-linear task force training could be interesting. Ie it does not take too much time and effort to get a ship up to a basic level of standing - especially when the crew are out of an acadamy but it should take progressively longer to get them fully trained - or that last bit of training only comes to those hardened crews who have actually seen combat.
So say 0-50% pretty easy, say twice as fast as today
51-75% same training speed as today
75 - 85% twice as long
85 -90% three times as long
90-100% only gained from combat expertise - ie crew bonuses from combat add to both ship bonus and task force bonus
For all ships less then 100% trained, gains as a result of combat experience also add to TF training.
One could simplify it and simply give chevrons, a la Total War experience, since its really just awarded here in 5 stages.
Post by: ollobrains on August 19, 2011, 06:28:19 AM
Post by: Klapaucius87 on August 19, 2011, 02:25:14 PM
I was thinking that non-linear task force training could be interesting. Ie it does not take too much time and effort to get a ship up to a basic level of standing - especially when the crew are out of an acadamy but it should take progressively longer to get them fully trained - or that last bit of training only comes to those hardened crews who have actually seen combat.
So say 0-50% pretty easy, say twice as fast as today
51-75% same training speed as today
75 - 85% twice as long
85 -90% three times as long
90-100% only gained from combat expertise - ie crew bonuses from combat add to both ship bonus and task force bonus
For all ships less then 100% trained, gains as a result of combat experience also add to TF training.
The fleet training skill show how much your ship crew is used to cooperate to accomplish orders, so fighting experience shouldn't be important to reach 100%.
Post by: waresky on August 22, 2011, 02:58:01 AM
A more better ARMY management and an "tactical map" for more feeling in..
Steve?
* are Age am post ...2009? ehehhe.--"The Fading Sun" like stylez are too,obviously..but a little exagonal map?..
:)
Post by: ollobrains on August 22, 2011, 03:50:09 AM
Post by: Charlie Beeler on August 22, 2011, 10:03:07 AM
TechType 6 - Squadron Jump Radius has some minor progression/development cost/hs requirements issues.
| Name Max Squadron Jump Radius - 50k (Size x 1.0) Max Squadron Jump Radius - 100k (Size x 1.05) Max Squadron Jump Radius - 250 (Size x 1.1) Max Squadron Jump Radius - 500k (Size x 1.15) Max Squadron Jump Radius - 750k (Size x 1.2) Max Squadron Jump Radius - 1000k (Size x 1.25) Max Squadron Jump Radius - 1500k (Size x 1.3) Jump Point Distance - 2000 (Size x 2.2) Jump Point Distance - 3000 (Size x 2.6) Jump Point Distance - 4000 (Size x 3.0) Max Squadron Jump Radius - 2000k (Size x 1.4) Max Squadron Jump Radius - 2500k (Size x 1.5) | DEV 1000 2000 4000 8000 15000 30000 60000 250000 500000 1000000 125000 250000 |
Granted this is a range of tech I haven't seen anyone post that they've gotten too.
For continuity TechType 166 should have Minimum Jump Engine Size - 15 not be a TransNewtonian Starting Tech.
Also for continuity TechType 196 (ground troops) Should probably have Replacement/Garrison/Mobile Infantry Battalions and Engineer Brigades changed to TransNewtonian Starting Tech since their only prerequisite tech is TransNewtian Tech.
One last thing that I've noted, there is an orphaned(prerequisite is no long a table entry) tech PDC Hanger (TechType 98)in the table.
Post by: DatAlien on September 01, 2011, 02:52:26 PM
Post by: chrislocke2000 on September 02, 2011, 04:24:58 AM
Having recently lost a colony of 50 odd million people to a hostile NPR I was pretty happy to be able to liberate them a couple of months later.
Now I know they may be pretty upset with me for letting them get captured in the first place but for them to be treated as a brand new captured race seems a little harsh.
I would propose that the penalties to production are reveresed on capture to reflect the fact that your own population is generally happier to see you back but may be disaffected by recent events. Ie if they are conquered status (20% production) when recaptured they class at 80% production for you. If you have been slow to get them back and the status of the colony for the other side has moved to Subjugated (40% production) then when you get them back they class at 60% etc.
This still gives a penalty for allowing them to be captured in the first place and also gives an incentive to get them back as soon as possible.
Post by: Feujak on September 02, 2011, 08:07:03 AM
I have a suggestions for the new Group by Function for colonie.
Why not adding a small menu to choose yourself which colonies will be in which group.
(This would prevent Archeological Digs to change statut when they find something)
Sorry for my poor english
Post by: Erik L on September 02, 2011, 11:33:31 PM
Post by: Steve Walmsley on September 04, 2011, 05:17:05 PM
Looks like there is some minor TechSystem table cleanup needed.
TechType 6 - Squadron Jump Radius has some minor progression/development cost/hs requirements issues.
Name
Max Squadron Jump Radius - 50k (Size x 1.0)
Max Squadron Jump Radius - 100k (Size x 1.05)
Max Squadron Jump Radius - 250 (Size x 1.1)
Max Squadron Jump Radius - 500k (Size x 1.15)
Max Squadron Jump Radius - 750k (Size x 1.2)
Max Squadron Jump Radius - 1000k (Size x 1.25)
Max Squadron Jump Radius - 1500k (Size x 1.3)
Jump Point Distance - 2000 (Size x 2.2)
Jump Point Distance - 3000 (Size x 2.6)
Jump Point Distance - 4000 (Size x 3.0)
Max Squadron Jump Radius - 2000k (Size x 1.4)
Max Squadron Jump Radius - 2500k (Size x 1.5)DEV
1000
2000
4000
8000
15000
30000
60000
250000
500000
1000000
125000
250000
Granted this is a range of tech I haven't seen anyone post that they've gotten too.
Yes, that was a a bit of a mess :). Fixed for the next DB release.
Quote
For continuity TechType 166 should have Minimum Jump Engine Size - 15 not be a TransNewtonian Starting Tech.
Also for continuity TechType 196 (ground troops) Should probably have Replacement/Garrison/Mobile Infantry Battalions and Engineer Brigades changed to TransNewtonian Starting Tech since their only prerequisite tech is TransNewtian Tech.
I am going to leave the Min Jump Engine Size as a starting tech. I think have the same setting for other size-based tech progressions. With regard to ground forces, there are a lot of techs that have TN tech as their only prerequisite so I can't really use that as a justification for having them immediately available. On the other hand, I think some starting ground forces are reasonable anyway so I will include all the above except engineers as starting tech.
Quote
One last thing that I've noted, there is an orphaned(prerequisite is no long a table entry) tech PDC Hanger (TechType 98)in the table.
I have removed it. The standard hangar can be used on ships so I don't think there is any point in having the PDC hangar as a special PDC system.
Thanks for identifying all the above issues.
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on September 04, 2011, 05:17:51 PM
a tactical map enhancement would make this game a bit easier to manage
Did you have any particular tactical map enhancement in mind?
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on September 04, 2011, 05:33:16 PM
Might have been said before but perhaps have the ship design window throw up a design error if you have missile launchers on a design but no missile fire control. Same for beam weapons and no beam fire control.
Fortunately I spotted that my new battlecruisers had a plethora of launchers and nothing to direct them with before I retooled a yard.
Added for the next version.
Steve
Post by: Beersatron on September 04, 2011, 07:43:39 PM
Something along the lines of:
The ship to be scrapped has to be old (say 10+ years?).
There has to be other ships in the line's fleet to 'take up the slack'.
The line gets 25% of the original wealth back.
They do not automatically build a new ship - there are way too many civies in pretty much every game I have played.
The ship has to be at a planet with a spaceport.
Anybody else got suggestions on factors that would weigh against/for scrapping?
Post by: Thiosk on September 04, 2011, 10:10:59 PM
Post by: Thiosk on September 05, 2011, 01:57:35 PM
I put my beam PDCs inside mountains, where the atmosphere is thinner. This would open up some beam coverage for planets. Might be too many special cases
Suggestion 2: maintenance is sometimes annoying at far flung worlds-- consumption of some minerals is far higher than others, and is not uniform. I suggest including another option: maintenance facilities should consume minerals first, but then resort to maintenance supplies to keep ships tip top. This way, you can just run supply ships rather than freighters, and logistically would only have to provide one item rather than (potentially) 11 minerals in various concentrations. The planned change to open up minerals to civilian trade would somewhat mitigate the logistical annoyance.
Post by: Steve Walmsley on September 05, 2011, 03:50:49 PM
Civilian Shipping, can you have something that will roll for scrapping ships?
Something along the lines of:
The ship to be scrapped has to be old (say 10+ years?).
There has to be other ships in the line's fleet to 'take up the slack'.
The line gets 25% of the original wealth back.
They do not automatically build a new ship - there are way too many civies in pretty much every game I have played.
The ship has to be at a planet with a spaceport.
Anybody else got suggestions on factors that would weigh against/for scrapping?
I think something along these lines is a really good idea. There are too many civvies and it does become a problem later in the game. I'll give it some thought.
Steve
Post by: Brian Neumann on September 05, 2011, 05:30:15 PM
Civilian Shipping, can you have something that will roll for scrapping ships?The availability of new/faster ships. The older a design is the more likely it will be considered obsolete. Also a factor based on size. A large ship may still be economical if it slow while a small ship with a limited payload that is slow as well is far less usefull. Finally any freighter that can not transport an installation (5 cargo holds) should have a dramatically higher chance of scrapping once larger freighters are comonly available.
Anybody else got suggestions on factors that would weigh against/for scrapping?
Brian
Post by: schroeam on September 05, 2011, 06:00:32 PM
Officer Assignments...
Is there any way to "fix" the auto assignments. I might be thinking too complicated, but my biggest complaint is that the auto assignments appear to focus on an officers training ability (ships) and ground combat ability (ground forces).
I would like to make each class of ship have a specific auto assignment requirement:
Crew Training - Warships with <75% training
Fleet Initiative - Warships with >75% training, ships with no obvious specialty, and orbitals (lack of engines)
Factory Production - Jump Gate Construction Ships
Fighter Operations - Fighters
Logistics - Colony Ships, Cargo Ships, Freighters, Troop Ships
Mining - Asteroid Miners, Sorium Harvesters
Terraforming - Terraformers
Political Reliability - secondary ability when no officers exist with the primary ability
Ground Force Training - Division and Brigade Commander
Ground Combat - Battalion, Company Commander
Xenoarcheology - Engeering Brigade
Political Reliability - secondary ability when no officers exist with the primary ability
Also I would like to see the Division and Brigade units turned into something like the Task Force Command structure. This would do two things:
Allow for more customized division and brigade sizes (more realistic to the armies of today)
Provide the Generals a staff much like their space fleet contemporaries.
Just a couple thoughts.
Thanks.
Adam.
Post by: Antagonist on September 07, 2011, 01:56:26 AM
This is because the Civie code can not handle the possibility of that jump tender being moved by the player before it gets their. Since the tender if under your control you may move it without knowing there are civs enroute, the civies get their and cant jump.
I guess it is like a present day cargo vessel relying on a government owned tug to push it into harbour, but the tug has been moved else where for some Super Sekret Government job.
I would like the ability to be able to run a jump gate-less empire. That is, the ability for civ ships to use any jump tenders I place at jump points. To do this either assumptions that if a ship has remained there for 5 days you can use it, cancelling if it does move, or else some player order 'provide jump tenders' that indicates to the civvies that they may use this without fear, but again cancelling if it does move. The 'build jump gate' order will imply that it can also provide jump tenders (if it has a jump drive) due to the reliance that the ship will stay put at the jump point for extended amounts of time.
EDIT: Also, would be nice to be able to mount passives on civ ships without it being mil-spec. I would be okay with a limitation like HS size 1 and less are civ, over is mil, to indicate the complexity of the equipment before it is milspec. EM sensors is basically a radio antenna and a thermal sensor is an IR camera, not really the most advanced equipment ever, though I imagine the fancier ones would indeed get very complicated very fast. I am fine with active sensors remaining fully milspec.
EDIT II: This would also get complicated very fast code-wise, but realistically multiple sensors working together would work better than a single sensor on its own. I suggest REALISM-wise that multiple sensors in a task group can serve to sense further the more there are, all wired together with some slight parralax to help tease out additional details. I would also be okay with this being shot down for purely game-play and balance reasons.
Also, thinking of or bouys as a Very Large Array: http://www.schlockmercenary.com/2003-06-24
Post by: Charlie Beeler on September 07, 2011, 08:04:39 AM
I am going to leave the Min Jump Engine Size as a starting tech. I think have the same setting for other size-based tech progressions.Of the base jump engine techs this is the only one that has no prerequisite tech while the others require jump point theory and are not starting techs.
Quote
With regard to ground forces, there are a lot of techs that have TN tech as their only prerequisite so I can't really use that as a justification for having them immediately available. On the other hand, I think some starting ground forces are reasonable anyway so I will include all the above except engineers as starting tech.Perhaps change engineers from having Trans-Newtonian Technology as the prerequisite to Mobile Infantry Battalion and be in-line with Assault Infantry Battalion and Brigade Headquarters as second research tier ground forces.
Post by: Gidoran on September 07, 2011, 09:39:43 PM
They'd be limited by jump drives/gates, so if you want to limit them to where you've already secured you can keep a jump drive off them, while it would free up some of the micromanagement to more important things. . . like Mr. Frisky, your next door suddenly-turned-hostile neighbor.
And actually to go along with this line of thinking, you could make it so that civilians could make asteroid miners as well instead of setting up CMCs on individual asteroids. The only real difference would be it would come out of a line's shipping budget instead of thin air as best I can tell, but it would go along with their new found prospecting capability well.
Post by: Thiosk on September 08, 2011, 12:56:18 AM
Wouldn't it make sense for Civilians to be able to make commercial geosurvey ship designs? They already can make mining stations on their own, so it wouldn't be too huge of a leap from there to assume they'd probably be willing to crew their own boats to find more minerals instead of waiting on governmental action.
I don't really want civs exploring new jump points. At all. For performance reasons, I was trying to restrict jump point exploration in a slow, methodical manner, to prevent spawning tons of systems. Well, found my first NPR, which found two other NPRs and spawned a bunch of precursors and swarm, and now i'm locked in a endless series of interrupts. Its not TOO terrible, but I must press the 5 day button 5 times to advance a contstruction cycle. Its always a series of 10 h, 14 h, 18h, 1.2 day, followed by 5 day cycle. Constantly.
I am not against a civilian survey fleet, just don't let them explore new jump points.
I'd also make the additional suggestion here: If you spawn a space faring NPR, spawn in five or ten linked and explored systems for it, but don't let it send out its infinite-fuel and infinite-durability scouts, operating decades after their homeworld's destruction, uncovering system after system until game performance issues become immense. (or update the engine for multicore processors... either or ;D) At least track AI fuel usage, on scouts, to mitigate this problem.
Post by: UnLimiTeD on September 08, 2011, 02:37:43 AM
Though multicore support is obviously a solution. X-D^^
Post by: Brian Neumann on September 08, 2011, 05:16:18 AM
I'd also make the additional suggestion here: If you spawn a space faring NPR, spawn in five or ten linked and explored systems for it, but don't let it send out its infinite-fuel and infinite-durability scouts, operating decades after their homeworld's destruction, uncovering system after system until game performance issues become immense. (or update the engine for multicore processors... either or ;D) At least track AI fuel usage, on scouts, to mitigate this problem.Maybe have a limit of how many systems they can go from a colony. If you put it at 5 systems then they would be able to do plenty of exploring, but not all over the map after their colonies were all captured/destroyed.
I don't know if this would be hard to do or not. For simplicity maybe just every year (1st Janauary) check to see if they can get to a colony with the standard 4 system check that civilians use would be enough.
Brian
Post by: Gidoran on September 08, 2011, 07:16:48 AM
Post by: waresky on September 08, 2011, 10:42:16 AM
And for our,Commanders,are perfect.
Civvie better follow Governement Plans
Post by: Thiosk on September 09, 2011, 02:54:44 PM
Along the theme of other recent posts, how about if similar ships band together into civilian fleets. Presently, ships seem to all act independently, which means orders must be calculated for each ship each cycle. Is this how it works? It seems a solution to this would be to allow ships to band together as the number of ships increase. For instance, I have well over 200 independent civilian vessesls traversing my colonies, more every construction cycle, and they move in clusters anyway, so if they banded together into simple fleets that may reduce computational cost a smidge.
Post by: Gidoran on September 09, 2011, 03:02:31 PM
Post by: Dutchling on September 10, 2011, 12:09:10 PM
Make fire control and active search sensors show and additional line on the map (if you have show sensors on) if they are of resolution 1. This line should be the detection line for size 6 missiles (or it might be configurable)
It keeps confusing me why I only see the missiles so close to my ship, and than I remember that the line is for a 1000ton ship and not missiles.
Post by: Ziusudra on September 10, 2011, 04:03:27 PM
Suggestion:
Make fire control and active search sensors show and additional line on the map (if you have show sensors on) if they are of resolution 1. This line should be the detection line for size 6 missiles (or it might be configurable)
It keeps confusing me why I only see the missiles so close to my ship, and than I remember that the line is for a 1000ton ship and not missiles.
This is an excellent suggestion.
BTW, 1000 tonnes if R20; R1 is 50 tonnes.
Post by: Dutchling on September 11, 2011, 03:12:22 AM
When giving a move order or an order that takes place at another place to a TG that has a speed of 1km/s, make them automatically go at max speed.
I've wasted a lot of time with ordering ship to go somewhere and only after a year discovering that they are only a few kkm further...
Post by: Thiosk on September 11, 2011, 04:54:02 PM
Does the body have a large magnetic field? Ships in orbit should be functionally cloaked-- this happens a lot in Sci Fi-- ships hide out behind moons and near stars, where sensor blindness takes effect.
Give ships an effective cloak-- maybe 90%-- when in orbit of a gas giant or star.
Post by: Mel Vixen on September 12, 2011, 06:59:17 PM
Seriously now the "Magnetic field" of an object should help against spaceborn radiation if there would be such a thing in the first place ;D
Post by: Thiosk on September 15, 2011, 02:56:31 AM
Unload Minerals to Reserve Level
Think of it. You could develop rules using the existing reserve level function to simplify logistics for supplying minerals to far-flung consumers of minerals. What I'd like to do is set earth to be the ultimate network destination for all minerals, but to have a fleet that simply circuits the empire with loads of minerals, and tops off all my construction/maintenence/refinery worlds automatically.
If the target does not need minerals, or if there are no minerals in the ship to drop off, the command simply completes with no messages or stops.
The helpful utility of this would be that if I were to decide to build something unexpected on some far flung world, all I would need to do would be increase the reserve level of the distant world, and then my automated supply fleets (automated by a sequence of cycle'd commands) would in time deposit the minerals at the location. If they run out of the needed mineral, they move on to the next site in the chain, until they research the network hub, where they dump all minerals then pick up X of each mineral. Eventually, when the construction finished, I could just lower the reserve level and the minerals would eventually find themselves back at earth.
Then civilian logic wouldn't even need to be changed to enable mineral transport. I could set up perfect logistical supply systems myself, building in essence military supply trains.
My ideal supply system:
All minerals go to earth, ultimately, which has no reserve levels.
>
Fleet Pick up 100,000 each mineral from earth
At Each Planet in the Sequence:
Unload minerals to reserve level
Pick up all minerals
Drop off all minerals
>Cycle Orders
Add a box for fuel reserves in the industrial screen, and then I could have tankers picking up fuel from refinery worlds and leaving desired quantities of fuel at various worlds with similar fuel commands (a regular refuel command would fill any ship with no regard to reserve, but a "load fuel to colony to reserve level" would add the necessary level of fuel.) The key thing to make the system work is that at no time should the error "loading failed at xxx" occur.
edit: now that I think of it though, I could in principle simply do this already by setting the fleet to unload all minerals, load all minerals at every planet... but the game doesn't seem to load/unload minerals evenly, so eventually the fleet would clog with duranium/neutronium and the network could freeze up.... so maybe I could do load 100,000 of each minerals... but the commands would crash the first time a world ran out of minerals...
edit edit I just had my birthday. i need this. for my bday present. 5.53 update material woot woot huggles 4 lief
Post by: Dutchling on September 15, 2011, 10:52:20 AM
Wehn loading 100k minerals when there are 40k available the tg should first load the 40k before ignoring the order though.
Post by: Antagonist on September 16, 2011, 08:14:32 AM
I would also like the ability to tell my fleets 'act like a civilian', aka when I'm not using my transport fleet it should move infrastructure and buildings around, and if it is a colony fleet it should move colonists around. This is so my fleets do useful non-micromanage things until I have something essential, such as a new colony that needs to be founded.
Patrol orders would also be nice. While possibly a waste of fuel, assigned sensor ships can attempt to move around the system's planets and jump points that is not already covered by say planetary sensors or other ships and look for contacts. Useful in core worlds and potentially a threat if done by an NPR you are trying to sneak up on.
One of this game's strengths to me is the civilians. It is an aspect that is almost completely unexplored in other games. For this reason I'd like to also suggest playable civilian shipping lanes and have these be interesting to play.
This will likely require an overhaul of civilians in its entirety, though I offer a few suggestions of what I'd like to see here(scroll down for TLDR version):
Shipyards: The ability to 'rent' shipyards (no more ships appearing from nowhere, but government does gain some wealth from it). A few ways of doing this I think... since this renting will affect the player. Either allow the civilians to build ships without needing to refit the shipyard, or require the player to create a shipyard for every civilian ship he wants built. An alternative is private civilian owned shipyards, either instead of rentable shipyards or in addition to them. I also don't find it unlikely that civilians can create ships without (space) shipyards. The cost is much greater, but possible. It is just not something a government that already has access to its own shipyards would often want to do, but is an option for those less well equipped. Would also provide continuity with current 'appearance' of ships.
Minerals: Civilian ships not appearing out of nowhere means the resources for the ships can't appear out of nowhere, which needs minerals are needed for civilians, while not affecting the current empire's game too much or creating a greater strain on minerals the game currently does. I'm thinking standard games would have for every 1 unit of mineral mined, an extra 0.2 is mined for free that isn't removed from planet's minable amounts and goes to civilians, with some government types like dictatorships getting 1.15 while civilians only 0.05, and free market governments possibly 0.8 to government and 0.4 to civilians. These can be bought or sold in case of excess amounts and civilian demands, but otherwise be 'free' yet untouchable. These ratios will have a DIRECT influence on the growth and ability of civilian ships. Civilian minerals would obviously also require civilian ships being able to move minerals around properly, for the government and themselves. I'm thinking a combination of reserve levels and designation of 'stockpile' colonies should do it. Non-stockpile colonies will keep minerals AT the reserve levels, while stockpile colonies will have minimum reserve levels, but otherwise try gather as much else they can. Civilian minerals ignore stockpiling and form their own rules on where and when they are needed.
Private Industry: As for employment and industry... when it says 6 million workers available, I highly doubt that means 6 million workers unemployed. Just simply not employed by government or for essential services. This means those 6 million people are in service industries, or manufacturing, such as making fridges and servicing them. I also notice that if you do a Pre-TN start, you have a bunch of Traditional Industry factories that are government owned. Now, while TN research completely changes space-travel, does it really change traditional industries? An assembly line is still an assembly line, just potentially with cost savings on accelerating engines and friction and drag. So why would these not continue to be used and pop up, only under civilian control.
I don't find it unreasonable that some of this manufacturing would even be made available to the government, perhaps explaining why 1 of these buildings only supply 1/10th of a mine, factory and ordanance factory I think it was... since much of the rest of its capacity is used in service and non-governmental uses. These can then also pop up and grow with available population. This means that big colonies will always have SOME civilian enabled mining and production capability, though it will never even approach that of a world with dedicated facilities instead of unfocused civilian factories. Having limited production capability on most worlds will open plenty of tactics and possibilities, as well as incentive to keep some amount of minerals on most worlds. Civilian factories can also be a source of most and consumer of many trade goods, meaning that these will no longer be made out of thin air and consumed invisibly. Population will still consume many stuff like luxury goods regardless of private employment, but goods like machinery will be consumed and generated at a far faster rate by a world with more of its population in private industry than not. Agriculture is another potential, with a manufacturing world possibly requiring food imports for its citizens all working in factories. A lack of private industry in your empire, such as if you make sure all of your population is employed in some way or another, could devastate supplies of many trade goods, resulting in a wealth crash. I don't see this as a negative thing and on par with the intentional evils and crashes of the current game.
An extention of this idea is that 'unemployed' civilians generate wealth, employed civilians cost wealth. It will be difficult to find a balance I think, but will also make debt management easier (shut down government factories for a while, save on the employees salaries and tax them when they find jobs for private industry.)
Research: Way I see it work currently is that the government doesn't actually do any of its own research. This is all done by private industry or contractors, but with grants, tenders and requests guiding and focussing where the RP ends up through money. Research labs are basically equipped universities or research lab contractors mostly owned(directly or indirectly) and controlled by the government. The Scientist leaders are employed 'administrators' rather than scientists in their own right, guiding and allocating priorities and spending, culling unproductive branches and encouraging positive avenues of research to obtain the best results, something which obviously does need knowledge of the domain. But while this is the best way to obtain results that doesn't mean it is the ONLY research going on. Private industry would come up with ideas, papers and innovations, all of which would grant RP, but spread randomly across all non-racial(aka design screen) techs. Potentially even civilian owned research labs can be built with lower RP output than government labs (They would focus on better fridges rather than space engines, but might still help deliver an innovation or two), but can be rented by the government for wealth.
The idea here is that while civilians and private industry are useful, they won't compare to the focus a player or NPR government can provide. The manufacturing bonus provided by civilians on a manufacturing world should be a small amount of the total.
Privateers: Most Sci-fi stories and games have Privateers of some sort or another. These are either explorers and prospectors, in the name of capitalism expanding the borders of the empire, finding new worlds and minerals for a finders fee, or they are militants who take up arms to defend the empire in times of war, or they are pirates or those who hunt them. In all of these cases it expands the role of civilians from just transporting stuff. On the most basic side, geo survey ships can be civilian controlled allowing exploration of new planets, potentially grav survey ships as well (Though I strongly recommend against allowing them to explore jump points, if this is implemented). A suggestion would be to make grav sensors civilian equipment, as well as thermal, em and active sensors below a certain size (say 1 or so). You should never be able to equip a size 50 sensor on a maintenance-free ship, but I see no reason for small ones suggesting just basic equipment, even it is usually only enough to see a missile coming just shortly before you blow up. If implemented, civilian explorers should be able to be switchable on and off on game settings. The lack of control and direction additionally means it might be more efficient to do it yourself.
Para-military: As for more military civilian ships such as at its most basic level transport ship escorts, I don't think many governments would 'rent' a naval shipyard. This might need a civilian naval shipyard(potentially with lax weapon laws under some government types?), or the ability for civilians to build small warships on the ground, or if it is possible to create a fighter with enough range, have civilians use fighters for escort duties. Alternatively civilian ships can be 'refitted' by civilians with non-standard equipment, such as a laser turret on a transport, or a special player created ship marked that civilians can use it as a base to add weapons to. Civilians already create a ground troop on civilian mining colonies, so similar private security forces should also be able to be formed on outlying worlds or where companies have great amount of assets. It might even be a bad thing if the amount of private forces outnumber government forces, allowing more corporate state policies and unhappy citizens. Such civilian military can be useful against hostile empires, possibly rallying when the race is under thread, but be no replacement for an actual navy. (THOUGHT: Anarchy government types, potentially meaning the AI will spawn A LOT more civilians, could they be viable in a military way? Won't have coordination but maybe with numbers?)
Pirates can potentially also form, essentially civilian shipping lanes who are hostile. This should be more likely with lower political stability, and higher inequality, less likely with wealth and a military presence. If things get TOO bad the colony itself might descend into anarchy and piracy. Pirate bases can form most anyplace outside sensor range in the same way mining colonies do. They have access to any tech you do, though with less manufacturing capability and greater stealth. If they create their own ship types it will often be 'modified' commonly available civilian ships. They'll attack civilians ships(warning shot, potentially either destroying or having the civilian surrender, taking it off your visible list of ships, potentially reappearing later as a pirate) while trying evade your troops and not lead you back to their base, which might even include a PDC. Eliminating pirates shouldn't be TOO difficult, just be largely a nuisance, causing political instability in its system and requiring you to have some ships spread across your empire and not just the frontiers. Eliminating a pirate base additionally should only be short-term solution if you don't address the reason why it formed in the first place. Player military ships or civilian military ships can also be given an escort order to follow around transports and keep an eye out for pirates.
Additionally, the behavior of civilians can be controlled by government type, since I assume this to be a reflection of a society's values as well as how the shots are called. Players who want more direct control can select something like a dictatorship, while players wanting more civilian activity and freedom might select anarchy or direct democracy. Additionally, more militant government types might see more military civilian ships, while others might not see any.
Player Civilian Corporations: Not quite shipping lanes anymore, but possibly interesting enough to play. A player civilian corporation will at least initially be linked strongly to an empire with assumed high security clearance and access to its full technologies. A player corporation has access to that 'untapped' production provided by civilian created traditional industries that is not given to the empire and can use this to construct more buildings, shipyards and ships. Its main resource is wealth, which it generates itself through unused factory capacity and over time, payments from the empire as well as trading(some of which is taxed). The 'share' of minerals it gets is dependant on its market share of the planet. Constructing more facilities and gaining wealth can increase this. If playing a corporation for a NPR, minerals can be bought and sold freely, else if it is a Player empire, offers can be made that the empire player has to accept. It can found its own mining or other unmanned automated colonies, potentially even corporate owned civilian worlds with actual populations, though I am not too certain how to work that.
A player civilian corporation can keep track of its own ship designs seperately from the empire. It has access to all the technologies it has security clearance for (either none, low for civilian rated only equipment or high for all technology). If it doesn't have access to a tech it can potentially BUY that tech from an empire(foreign empire's designs or high clearance items with a low clearance start). Though a corporation will initially start linked to an empire, there is no reason it has to remain that way. Through its actions it can raise its clearance with other empires or lose it. It can potentially even turn traitor.
A player corporation has a seperate much sparser research tree than an empire which usually focuses on manufacturing improvements (allowing ship components to be built for less points or minerals than an empire can build it, possibly by replacing many trans-newtonian parts with traditional materials) or marketing, increasing its market share, increasing supply of trade good or demand of trade goods. It can accept empire contracts for building movements, as well as contracts for building ship parts. Perhaps even its own special components that can be used in its own ships, or sold to empires, though that would require special ship designs to use it which is micromanagementy... It can rent manufacturing capability, research labs or even shipyards to an empire for extra wealth from buildings. Possibly it can even do training, granting the empire access to at least partially trained troops. Potentially it can even build ships or warships on the ground then launch, though at a greater cost (why would a government do it if it has access to naval yards? Also in reference to how I see it currently happening.)
If it has access to war technologies and a way to build warships, a player corporation can assist in a way of private military or as scouts and escorts, perhaps even just selling already completed ships to the player. It may even incite war by attacking alien civilians or enemies without knowledge or permission of its empire.
Additionally, another type of corporation might be a pirate or a crime syndicate, an organisation that works against an empire more directly. It would also have a 'market share' but this would reduce political stability and raise security concerns for the world. Secret, stolen or intimidated civilian manufacturing can create its products. Potentially it can even be both a legit corporation and a secret crime syndicate at the same time. Its power grows with less stability, something that can be encouraged with propaganda, possibly even taking over the world if it gets too low. It can form pirate bases, steal ships and generally increase its influence, but it is vulnerable on well-protected and defended worlds where local police can arrest members if it becomes too ambitious, reducing its influence.
While I would like to see all of this ingame, I would also hate to HAVE to have a player corporation alongside my player empire to get max benefit. All these advantages should be supplied by the AI corporations, just... less controllable and focussed than if a player did it. Playing as a Player Corporation for an NPR, or even as traders who sell and trade goods over a dozen NPRs should be possible. A Player Corporation should be powerful, though weak compared to an empire.
This should be controllable by the empire though, though either game or government settings since not everyone would appreciate a game like this, judging my some posts that complain about even the current level of civilian AI.
TLDR; I'd like to see civilians play a larger role in the game, but not become too powerful. I'd like to see player controlled shipping lines, but for this to be interesting plenty stuff has to be improved which will make game better even when not playing with player controlled shipping lines.
Ug, monster post...
Post by: ardem on September 16, 2011, 08:50:50 PM
You have maintenance for ships, I would not mind seeing supplies for ground troops, in combat they use up supplies faster.
The logistical to support an operation, what add another dimension when going to attack a base.
I don't think it be a terribly had thing to add, you could add also troops out of supply or only supplied a percentage what they need are a certain % combat effective.
Post by: GeaXle on September 17, 2011, 04:17:52 AM
I would love to be able to see only task group of a specific system and/or of a specific task force. For realism purpose, my task groups and task forces don't always have obvious names, aswell as my ship. And it quickly become quite complicated to find the one I need in the huge list.
Thanks for all the work by the way! :)
Post by: GeaXle on September 17, 2011, 04:19:38 AM
all is said
Post by: Thiosk on September 17, 2011, 04:37:19 PM
Recall all Civilian Vessels to Capital
Attempts to find a path and give orders for a one time return to the system set as capital. Useful for when the entire civilian fleet decides to sit at one world 4 jumps away from everywhere. Ammends the orders to the ship's current task, so it will finish what its doing before returning.
Post by: Thiosk on September 17, 2011, 04:44:31 PM
Seriously. Lose a little reactor in combat, you might just have to shut shields down in order to continue firing.
Post by: Dutchling on September 17, 2011, 04:45:50 PM
Link shields to reactors, instead of to fuel.I like this. Reactors are a lot more valuable in combat than a little bit of fuel.
Seriously. Lose a little reactor in combat, you might just have to shut shields down in order to continue firing.
Post by: wedgebert on September 17, 2011, 06:31:55 PM
Quote from: Thiosk link=topic=2828. msg39905#msg39905 date=1316295871
Link shields to reactors, instead of to fuel.
Seriously. Lose a little reactor in combat, you might just have to shut shields down in order to continue firing.Quote from: Dutchling link=topic=2828. msg39906#msg39906 date=1316295950I like this. Reactors are a lot more valuable in combat than a little bit of fuel.
Why not link everything to the reactor? Since the engines don't seem to use Sorium fuel as reaction mass, doesn't it make more sense for the fuel to power the reactors which in turn power the various subsystems? Loss of a reactor might mean having to choose between shields and sensors or weapons and engines.
It also provides the opportunity to have some sort of battery tech that you can use in case of reactor damage or damage to the fuel tanks.
Post by: HaliRyan on September 19, 2011, 11:51:35 AM
Post by: Father Tim on September 19, 2011, 06:12:39 PM
Why not link everything to the reactor? Since the engines don't seem to use Sorium fuel as reaction mass, doesn't it make more sense for the fuel to power the reactors which in turn power the various subsystems? Loss of a reactor might mean having to choose between shields and sensors or weapons and engines.
It also provides the opportunity to have some sort of battery tech that you can use in case of reactor damage or damage to the fuel tanks.
This has been suggested before, and turned down on the basis that such micromanagement would not be fun for most people. Steve is leery of anything that looks like Star Fleet Battles style energy allocation. So if you can think of a way to automate the process you'll have a much better chance of getting it to happen.
Steve has stated that any increase in micromanagement needs to be accompanied by a commensurate increase in fun for most - or rather, n early all - players. He's not really wiling to add something that annoy 10% of his players if it's not going to make the other 90% ecstatically happy.
And back in the day, shields were run off generators. It was decided to tie them to the fuel system so that there would be a penalty for running around with them turned on all the time. So here's the problem:
1. There needs to be a cost for running around all the time with your shields on. Steve doesn't want to amke it impossible, just costly.
2. Since the shields need to be knocked down before any internals can be scored*, it's largely irrelevant which ship system generates the shields and whether or not it appears on the DAC. Only repair costs will be affected.
*Except, of course, by Meson Beams. But it's exceedingly rare for a ship to be subject to Meson and non-Meson damage at the same time, since it's inefficient. (And rare for a ship to mix Mesons with any other weapons, except perhaps missiles).
Post by: Thiosk on September 19, 2011, 06:31:22 PM
Post by: Gidoran on September 20, 2011, 08:33:24 AM
All the engines, weapons, and whatever else would have a power requirement. Each reactor would require so much fuel per day to run and provide that much power. You could have, say, Reactor with a production of 10pw, or whatever as a petawatt might be a bit much. Engines could take 50% of that to run, weapons 30%, sensors 10%, then 10% for life support or whatever. No increase in micromanagement as the game would run distribution pretty much like it does now, MAYBE with an option to pick what cuts out first in the event of too little power. It'd also help newbies not forget to make reactors.
Post by: wedgebert on September 20, 2011, 02:19:26 PM
- Designing the ship in the first place
- Reprioritizing power after suffering damage, akin to Damage Control or shutting down sections of industry
- Turning systems off on a ship in order to increase the time it can spend on station (since life support and passive sensors would require power and therefore fuel)
Speaking of micromanagement, maybe I'm blind and can't find it, but is there a way to setup the default fire control and point defense assignments for a class at design time? Similarly to how you can set the default missile and parasite complements?
Post by: user-unknown on September 20, 2011, 03:22:16 PM
Systems with large amounts of civilian traffic but low planetary protection values could have a chance of spawning pirates, who attempt to board your civilian ships and steal your stuff. They could be based on pirate equivalents of CMC, with sensor platforms, PDC defences, etc. and if you have ships captured by them too frequently, they gain wealth in the same way freight lines do, allowing them to build additional ships. Could be divided by race too, so that pirates of a certain race get eg. tech equivalent to one or two levels behind their parent.
It could also be interesting to add some form of 'demand surrender' order, to allow fleets that massively outweigh other targets can request them to surrender without shooting, and be transferred to your nation without having to damage them.
Post by: Brian Neumann on September 20, 2011, 03:42:44 PM
Speaking of micromanagement, maybe I'm blind and can't find it, but is there a way to setup the default fire control and point defense assignments for a class at design time? Similarly to how you can set the default missile and parasite complements?Not quite, but you can set up the default for a class fairly easily from the combat screen (F8 I think). When you are in the combat screen you pull up a ship you have already built then start assigning all of the weapons and eccm to fire control. Then set up the point defense settings for the anti-missile launchers and all beam point defense. Then hit the button on the far right for copy settings to the class. This will only copy the settings over to existing ships, so you will need to go in occasionally to hit the copy button again to get the setup copied to all of the ships in the class. Make sure you have beam weapons assigned a point defense setting regardless of the type of beam weapon. In most cases if you are under missile fire you are also out of energy range of your enemy so you might as well get what use you can out of the weapons by using them to shoot down incomming missiles. While it may not be all that accurate, anything they shoot down does help. I don't recommend doing this with offensive missile launchers as they are both limited in ammuntion and not very effective in the anti-missile role normally.
Brian
Post by: Brian Neumann on September 20, 2011, 03:45:17 PM
Brian
Post by: HaliRyan on September 21, 2011, 10:45:42 PM
An active sensor jammer could be interesting as well. Like an active ECM module that affects the sensors of a target ship or group rather than their fire control, but makes the ship doing it stand out like a neon sign maybe?
Post by: IanD on September 22, 2011, 06:01:08 AM
Should maintenance facilities be able to maintain 1000 tons of ships per facility rather than 200 tons as at present? There is no real requirement to maintain vessels below 1000 tons since fighters got moved into hangers for maintenance.
Regards
Post by: Antagonist on September 22, 2011, 09:38:07 AM
An active sensor jammer could be interesting as well. Like an active ECM module that affects the sensors of a target ship or group rather than their fire control, but makes the ship doing it stand out like a neon sign maybe?
Well, there isn't anything targetted atm, but there is cloaking systems? It reduces your signature to an enemy, which is what you seem to suggest, only without the downsides of standing out or actually needing to see the enemy :P
Post by: HaliRyan on September 22, 2011, 12:56:33 PM
Well, there isn't anything targetted atm, but there is cloaking systems? It reduces your signature to an enemy, which is what you seem to suggest, only without the downsides of standing out or actually needing to see the enemy :P
There is, but it's the inverse of what I'm talking about. Cloaking protects the ship mounting it from all enemies (great for a scout, but not so hot for an entire battle fleet), a jammer protects all friendlies from the ship being targeted (terrible for a scout, great for a battle fleet).
Post by: Dutchling on September 23, 2011, 08:57:52 AM
Quote from: Paul date=1316445231
I kinda wish there was an intermediate maintenance option that made ships have a set rate of failure not based on an overhaul clock, and just require resupply with maintenance supplies every so often. That way resupplying a fleet of defense bases would be as simple as sending a supply ship every few years, instead of having to send tugs and give a bunch of orders to tow them back and forth. Maintenance facilities could be changed so that instead of keeping a ship at 0 clock or rewinding the clock they would reduce the failure rate of ships in orbit and take the supplies from the planet so you don't have to give the order for the ships to resupply constantly. With a system like this I'd even like to see civilian ships require maintenance, maybe at a reduced failure rate so they can go further between resupply and don't require as many engineering sections. It'd make more sense to have civilian and military parts instead of the whole ship, so you could still use civilian engines on a military ship for reduced maintenance cost if you wanted to - and putting one military part on a civ ship (like, say, grav sensors) wouldn't suddenly make your commercial engine start breaking down.
Post by: davidr on September 25, 2011, 09:48:19 AM
DavidR
Post by: Herode on September 25, 2011, 01:24:49 PM
Post by: Dutchling on September 25, 2011, 01:54:10 PM
When you have some order set to repeat anyhow (repeat N times or cycle) and you click the "delete all" orders button, then the repeat/cycle feature should be unchecked (or some poped up dialog should ask you if you want it unchecked or not).This.
So much.
Post by: waresky on September 26, 2011, 12:04:25 PM
I would like to be able to gain information about friendly NPR vessels that visit ones Homeworld i.e. type of vessel , usage and number/type of weapons present , if any . If vessels are on trade missions then the planets owner should have the information on the visiting non owned ships.
DavidR
-1
Me no,srry.
"Fog Of War"..
Obviously my 2 cents:)
Post by: Jacob/Lee on September 26, 2011, 06:51:23 PM
They'd be like the swarm, only purely reliant on anything else there. The swarm can reproduce via wrecks that workers can create after mining, the zombies are totally reliant on other races to expand their fleet. They would have some motherships filled with small "troop transports" filled with "zombies" (which I picture more as tough organic matter rather than ships, the "zombies" being more like animalistic parasite things instead of dead sentients) and when a ship came in range they dumped out a few of the transports. The transports would then close in and ram straight through your hull, no need for the boarders to blast a hole, they would just punch right through your shields/armor. Then boarding combat would begin, when (if) the crew dies off the ship starts to badly contort and metal and flesh would fuse together to form this perverted organic body thing, a la Space Pirates and Zombies. These "zombie ships" would be armed with the weapons the ship had originally. If missiles were on board, they possibly could get turned into these organic suicide cannons which loaded small amounts of boarders (Say, 5 every missile size) onto a ship. That, combined with large enough/enough missiles could possibly land a whole company on board an enemy ship and the cycle would continue. If it could be added, these ships, being organic masses mixed with metal rather than solid metal, could regenerate damage at a slow rate. For the sake of balance, certain systems on the ship could be destroyed by the infection, like microwaves and shields. The marines/parasitic zombies of these vessels could have their readiness/strength increased by picking up life pods, where they would butcher the crew and add to their ranks. Obviously, this is a very rough idea and may need to be changed a lot to fit the current limitations of the game or to stop them from being able to run over everything they meet.
1)note: that is just a stock name I used, something more ~original~ can be used in place of it.
Post by: jseah on September 26, 2011, 09:46:50 PM
And that AMMs will gun down all the transports before they even get close.
But otherwise, nice idea.
Make it a special NPR race that when it invades a planet, its troops slowly covert the captured population into it's home population.
Post by: theonlystd on September 27, 2011, 05:48:37 PM
I know this option used to be in older versions or something.. But so many officers cluttered crap up..
But would like for dead and retired officers to be saved somewhere for RP reasons and such.. To cut down on how many are saved so the amount doesnt reach insane amounts.. Id like it to only save officers that have a Medal of some kind? I award all my Officers who partake in a serious battle a medal so I can kind of keep track of who does what and where and when...Maybe a way to export it and clear it or something or to? Dunno if any of the above is possible but would be awesome for me atleast.
Any hope auto assignment thing for officers to assign officers without crew bonus's to ships?? Tis bugs me I have guys who will hang around for the 6,7 years and never do anything cause they dont have any crew bonus.. Some officers are crappy they should still fly a ship!
Post by: Din182 on September 27, 2011, 09:33:08 PM
Post by: Jacob/Lee on September 27, 2011, 09:47:36 PM
Quote from: not me
One thing? Better NPR AI.
Right now they're too stupid to be a real challenge in the long term. Even just giving them a proper AI for research would go a long way, right now they'll do research with the wrong researchers (giving up the significant bonus), research the same thing more than once at a time (paying double for the same tech), and always put research on the back burner (it's the first to go for budget cuts, even in peace time - building a massive fleet of low tech fodder is more important). Plus they research the dumbest things.
I had a 50 year game where when I finally met the NPR 40 years in they had nuclear pulse engines still. I dug into the NPR techs in designer mode to see what they had researched, and they had picked up millions of RPs worth of jump drive tech and jump gate building tech (they had the capability of building jump gates in 30 days) and construction techs (they had 2100 ship building rate). They had built like 5000 jump gates and had a massive fleet of military ships and a bunch of little colonies, but their military ships were going 2700 km/s and their beam ships had a range of 30k km and their anti-ship missiles had a warhead of 4 with a speed of 16000 km/s and a measly range of 16m km. If they had spent half the points they put into those techs on more useful technologies they would have had a military that wasn't a complete joke. I sent in one 5000 ton beam ship armed with particle beams and gauss for point defense (with 100% hit rate on their crummy missiles) and wiped out their fleet. They couldn't touch it.
They had good research tech and like 80 labs too. If they had focused on making an effective military instead of their jump fetish they could have given my empire a real challenge.
Sometimes NPRs can be good, but mostly it seems to be just pure random chance if they research the right techs.
Post by: user-unknown on September 29, 2011, 12:50:08 PM
When salvaging alien wrecks, I've pulled a number of subsystems out of them, but only rarely get information added to the class information. It would be useful to have a 'known subsystems' panel in the class design display that gets updated when a subsystem is taken from a wreck so I don't have to make notes about a ship having missile launchers/jump gate construction/geological sensors/etc. in the notes section.
Tied into this could be the ability for the sensor range display for alien contacts to update itself based on known capabilities (as described here http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,4140.msg40482.html#new). If I know a race has EM sensitivity 14 or whatever or I've actually taken complete sensor arrays out of the wreck of a class, it would be useful if the displayed sensor range for that classes sensors took that into account. Or maybe, if you know/suspect a race has a certain level of sensitivity tech, you could have a setting on that races pages for 'display sensors from this race assuming sensitivity X'?
Maybe a very small chance of getting a complete class design display when salvaging a wreck? - I want to see what Precursor ships look like on the inside :)
Would also be useful for the overall known tech for alien race list to include information from technology transfers and espionage
Post by: HaliRyan on October 01, 2011, 11:37:32 AM
On the same note perhaps a max range for contacts listed as available targets would be a good thing for beam fire controls, not just MFCs. Having an enemy at 1600 million km be a valid target for my 60k km range meson cannon doesn't help much. :P
Post by: wedgebert on October 05, 2011, 11:47:57 PM
1) If the increments are being shortened due to possible combat in another system, if in SM mode, can the system it's occuring in be listed so we can jump to it and add a spacetime bubble to resolve it faster? Unless actual combat occurs, sometimes it's impossible to know where the two sides are playing "who can keep the other in sensor range but out of weapons range the longest?"
2) On the System Map screen, can the Racial Wealth: XXX(+/-YY) from the economics screen title bar be added?
Post by: chrislocke2000 on October 06, 2011, 06:00:35 AM
1) For fighters and other similar ships it would be great if you could select multiple ships in the left hand menu for allocating targets. I quite often have a wing of 20 fighters but only want five of them to engage a target. The multiple targets button helps but does not quite get you there.
2) When moving between ships it would be great if the MFC with weapons allocated to it would be the default one selected.
3) I think I haave said this before but keeping the current ship that you are allocating targets to selected on the drop down list would really help in working out which ships have a target. Actually thinking about it, an extra column in both your ships and the hostile ships box that has a tick in it to show that your ships have a target or the hostile ships have been targetted by one of your ships would be very helpful as well.
Post by: theonlystd on October 07, 2011, 01:13:37 AM
Needs some kind of tie in with biology/genetics and genetic modification buildings..Want to assembly line my own line of genetic enhanced Space Marines. The warhammer 40k fan in me clamours for such things ...
Post by: UnLimiTeD on October 07, 2011, 04:05:06 AM
Not that I disagree or anything.
Post by: orfeusz on October 07, 2011, 08:28:35 AM
Another thing.. Id love ground units to get some love the whole thing is kind of generic compared to ships atm and could be so much fun!!!
Needs some kind of tie in with biology/genetics and genetic modification buildings..Want to assembly line my own line of genetic enhanced Space Marines. The warhammer 40k fan in me clamours for such things ...
+1 ;D
Also, i write it somewhere, but i will repeat...
SOUND OF TURN END. When i click 30 day it take sometime 4-5 minutes (old CPU + long game) and i tend to go use Firefox. Sometimes forgot that i was playing and use Internet for 15 minutes before i notice that i was playing Aurora. Not good.
Post by: Ashery on October 07, 2011, 10:47:29 AM
+1 ;D
Also, i write it somewhere, but i will repeat...
SOUND OF TURN END. When i click 30 day it take sometime 4-5 minutes (old CPU + long game) and i tend to go use Firefox. Sometimes forgot that i was playing and use Internet for 15 minutes before i notice that i was playing Aurora. Not good.
Heh, solved that on my end by not having Firefox set to full screen. Just a small gap at the bottom to see the updated events (As shown on the system map).
Post by: wedgebert on October 07, 2011, 02:42:39 PM
Heh, solved that on my end by not having Firefox set to full screen. Just a small gap at the bottom to see the updated events (As shown on the system map).
That's what I do, but then I realize it's been 30 minutes and I haven't noticed a message change because "Mars is currently experiencing unrest due to overpopulation..." that happens every turn...
Post by: wedgebert on October 07, 2011, 11:09:02 PM
Post by: scvn2812 on October 07, 2011, 11:29:31 PM
Post by: user-unknown on October 08, 2011, 04:06:58 PM
Somewhere in the task force and individual ship status listings it should mention whether or not that ship is experiencing post jump effects.
I think it does, but only when they are in effect. It replaces the maintenance state and clock with sensor delay and fire delay columns.
Post by: wedgebert on October 08, 2011, 07:02:08 PM
I think it does, but only when they are in effect. It replaces the maintenance state and clock with sensor delay and fire delay columns.
Is that why it's doing that? I'd been thinking it was a bug and was about to report it.
Post by: scvn2812 on October 09, 2011, 01:17:52 AM
Post by: Paul on October 11, 2011, 03:24:11 PM
This has probably been suggested before, but how about the option to target specific parts of a ship?
For instance you could give the order to target a ship's engines, shield generators, or weapons - or just a general attack on the ship as it is now. Attempting to target a specific location would come with an accuracy penalty, but any hits penetrating the armor would be focused primarily on the selected systems. Say a 90% chance to hit the selected system, with the other 10% going to generic parts like crew quarters and fuel storage and engineer sections which might be surrounding the system you're targeting.
This way you could specifically target a ship's engines to either slow it down so your slower ships can catch it, or disable it for boarding combat. Or use mesons to focus on taking out shield systems of a heavily shielded ship in order to follow up with a missile barrage.
The accuracy penalty could either be a set percent (maybe 30% or 40% reduction) or be based on the ratio of that type of part to the rest of the ship. In the 2nd case it would be easier to target a ship's engines when a third of the ship is engines, but targeting the 50 ton engine on a 500 ton fighter would be more difficult.
Post by: Hazard on October 12, 2011, 04:04:42 PM
Post by: Dutchling on October 13, 2011, 08:47:27 AM
Right now it doesn't make sense to have my 'korvettenkapitan' (German theme) command PDC.
GFCs having different abilities is ofc a problem and I don't really know of a solution to this. I just posted this anyway as maybe other people have a suggestion / opinion?
Post by: HaliRyan on October 14, 2011, 03:24:26 AM
The ability to make a jump drive usable by only the mounting ship in exchange for a size reduction could be very useful too. I'm thinking small scouts, survey ships, solo patrol vessels, and oversize fleet flagships could all make good use of such a change.
Post by: Brian Neumann on October 14, 2011, 05:48:03 AM
A longevity research branch under biology to make your officers live longer (and thus retire at a later age).There is already a size limit on designing a jump engine. If you design below the limit then the jump engine only works on the mounting craft and cannot take any companions with it. This covers the small end of your request. There really isn't anything currently that allows for a smaller version of a jump engine in exchange for no companions on the jump.
The ability to make a jump drive usable by only the mounting ship in exchange for a size reduction could be very useful too. I'm thinking small scouts, survey ships, solo patrol vessels, and oversize fleet flagships could all make good use of such a change.
Brian
Post by: HaliRyan on October 14, 2011, 07:12:04 AM
There really isn't anything currently that allows for a smaller version of a jump engine in exchange for no companions on the jump.
Brian
Err... that's sort of why I was suggesting it? ;D
Post by: Erik L on October 14, 2011, 10:18:59 AM
Err... that's sort of why I was suggesting it? ;D
Wouldn't that be the self-only jump engines?
Post by: HaliRyan on October 14, 2011, 10:28:33 AM
Wouldn't that be the self-only jump engines?
Yes and no. Self-only is currently a design limitation, not option. I was suggesting an option to purposely make a jump engine self-only for the benefit of reduced space on the system.
Example - Say you had a fleet flagship that was significantly larger than your main ships. It'd be nice to be able to have a jump drive built specifically for it that only allowed it to jump itself, but was smaller than a standard jump drive capable of moving a similarly sized ship. Obviously not at such a reduced cost that it made the squadron jump version obsolete, but something like 50-70% the size of the normal version.
Post by: UnLimiTeD on October 15, 2011, 03:45:31 AM
So far the fluff goes, opening a worm hole of the needed size simply leaves enough space for others to slip through.
Though, why don't you simply build more ships that size?
Post by: HaliRyan on October 15, 2011, 04:50:02 AM
Post by: Thiosk on October 23, 2011, 03:33:16 PM
Limit them to something reasonable, like 50 or maybe 100 ships absolute total-- its hard enough on the game cycles when my civ industry is >200 ships but if the NPRs develop industries of comparable size.............
Post by: Theeht on October 23, 2011, 07:06:16 PM
Post by: sublight on October 24, 2011, 09:35:01 AM
It's a little thing, but it feels strange that you can design a 7,000 km/s+ 'Missile' from day 1 in a conventional start, but I'd like to preserve the option of a conventional start IBM alternative: especially for a Martian vs Earthman conventional set up. Maybe have a 0.05 power/MSP starting conventional drone drive, followed by a 500p or 1000p 'Drone Thermal engine' tech to achieve the normal Trans-Newtonian starting drive?
Post by: LoSboccacc on October 24, 2011, 01:26:22 PM
how about some research data coming from mass production? just a bit, because the main driver will always be research, just to favor specialization and commitment.
it should work only on improvable parts, like laser size or meson focusing or engine fuel consumption but not on different technology lines, so not for ion to magnetoplasma and not from visible light laser to the next laser frequency.
the bonus should be very little and proportional to the level actually used in the design. it should be awarded only for production, not design.
a formula that comes to mind would be (tech level -1) points.
some example:
ion engine, efficiency -10, fuel 0.7, no hyper-drive, no thermal reduction, military engine.
for each engine produced at a shipyard or planet
to magneto plasma: no bonus, different tech line
to next negative efficiency: 1 point (level 2 -1)
to next fuel: 2 points (level 3 - 1)
to next hyper drive: 0 points (level 1 - 1)
to next thermal: 0 points (level 1-1)
it could use some balancing (ciws and turrets in general would give point to a lot of components that way, from turret gears to all gauss techs, multiplied for every weapon inside the turret)
Post by: Thiosk on October 24, 2011, 04:36:47 PM
Researching EVERY component is sometimes tedious. As it stands, major advances of technology, I research: new engines, new jumpdrive, cloaking devices, etcetera. If i'm just redesiging a piece of tech for a specific role, however, I just SM it because theres too many things to do between deciding to construct a ship and actually completing the blueprint. SMing it is fine for me, but its a little heartbreaking to do it.
I might suggest some sort of RP threshold that separates old tech from new tech. Major line item changes require a new research project, downgrades or minor items do not (adding extra armor to an item, for instance, doesn't really justify a complete new project.)
To balance this, I propose the following: when building a ship using new systems, theres a "learning curve." The first five ships, the constituent components cost an effective 25% more BP as the engineers learn to install them. The next ten have no cost impact, and the rest cost an effective 25% less as the engineers and industry are adept at their construction.
Post by: metalax on October 24, 2011, 06:39:43 PM
Post by: Yonder on October 25, 2011, 12:52:35 PM
All armor types could have a corresponding "nano" version. Which is much more (5-10x?) expensive. This armor doesn't repair itself as such, but it does slowly redistribute itself. There would be a new tech line with the time interval of this redistribution, maybe starting at 10-20 minutes and maxing out at 5 seconds.
Every "Nano Armor Interval" of time an armor slot would be removed from one of the of the columns with the most armor, and put in one of the columns with the least armor. (Assuming that this column had at least 2 less armor than the original column).
So after a battle (and at higher tech levels, possibly even between salvos) your armor would still be weaker but you would no longer have gaping holes in your armor offering the chance of an unlucky hit. You'd now have a thinner, but more evenly distributed armor belt.
Post by: Goron on October 26, 2011, 09:01:05 AM
In more words: when I click the tanker checkbox in my class design, add [tanker] to the design summary
Post by: orfeusz on October 26, 2011, 09:14:49 AM
An option to select "don't use stockpiled parts" when building or refiting a ship.
+1
Nano Armor Tech Line:
All armor types could have a corresponding "nano" version. Which is much more (5-10x?) expensive. This armor doesn't repair itself as such, but it does slowly redistribute itself...
I don't like that idea. It will make missile less powerful. It's also too like "organic armor concept" that I really, really don't like ;D
Even if that idea is on, i think that it would be enormously more expensive to produce. Now we have layers of more and more powerful alloys. Like simple steel plates, titanium, etc. You propose something as powerful as those "super dense and hot resistance" alloys to be able to move, quite fast in couple of seconds. Only thing I'm capable of thinking is that it would need to be nanites, and wow. They are costly! So maybe like 80x more expensive. It's only ma opinion. ;)
Post by: Antagonist on October 26, 2011, 11:26:56 AM
Post by: Goron on October 26, 2011, 12:01:06 PM
Post by: Thiosk on October 27, 2011, 06:32:11 PM
As strange as that word sounds, i'd like to have a group with a conditional order: fulfill Auto-tug requests.
Then, you can select a ship, order it to "wait for tug to: destination."
What this would let you do is put your tugs on autopilot, and then instruct task groups to move by tug. I envision this occuring in such a way that the task group would sit there, and then tugs would come, merge with the task group, and split off to carry the ships to the destination. I'm sure there is a simple solution to avoid spawning a hundred task groups if you request tugs for 100 ships.
Post by: Mel Vixen on October 29, 2011, 10:41:53 AM
Post by: scvn2812 on November 02, 2011, 09:57:53 AM
Why must maintenance storage bays make a ship automatically military? This would simplify logistics just a bit by allowing commercial built supply ships that don't break down.
Post by: Jacob/Lee on November 02, 2011, 06:03:07 PM
Post by: metalax on November 02, 2011, 08:24:53 PM
Commercial ships don't break down in the first place.
Yes, but he is talking of making commercial maintainance supply ships so as to take advantage of that, but it is not possible to use maintainance supply storage components as they automatically make the ship military, which is the part he was asking to be changed.
You can make commercial supply ships using large numbers of engineering sections however they will be carrying far less total maintainance supplys than their military counterpart.
Post by: UnLimiTeD on November 04, 2011, 04:35:10 AM
As in, the Alpha Centauri Kind.
Scientists could just pick an undisclosed matter of research, and when they are half done, you see what they do and can put it on hold if you don't like it.
Optional, of course.
Post by: blue emu on November 06, 2011, 07:45:26 PM
... and yes, I have a specific application in mind (Modular Ship Design), for which smaller Tractor Beams would be very useful.
Post by: UnLimiTeD on November 07, 2011, 04:39:48 AM
But +1.
For modular design, wouldn't transportation clamps be better, allowing to merge two parts into one TCS?^^
Post by: Mel Vixen on November 07, 2011, 02:05:22 PM
Given that losing soldiers in modern wars provokes already unrest in theyr homecountries this could also be a part of aurora - for example 1% gloalunrest for every 1000 lost soldiers (diminishing over time naturally). Secondly it would be nice if the pods weight gets added to the weight of the rescuing ship if said ship has not enough space to harbor all the people inside the pod.
Post by: Yonder on November 07, 2011, 02:30:34 PM
Given that losing soldiers in modern wars provokes already unrest in theyr homecountries this could also be a part of aurora - for example 1% gloalunrest for every 1000 lost soldiers (diminishing over time naturally). Secondly it would be nice if the pods weight gets added to the weight of the rescuing ship if said ship has not enough space to harbor all the people inside the pod.
I don't think that it's a good idea to model that since it would be impossible to do accurately, without implementing an entire war exhaustion system. Russia lost millions upon millions of soldiers in WW2 and kept fighting, the US public lost all willpower to fight in Vietnam after 50-60 thousand deaths. There are just way too many variables for each specific war and culture to simply model how unrest should be modeled for a specific number of lost soldiers.
Post by: symon on November 07, 2011, 03:56:07 PM
Post by: LizardSF on November 08, 2011, 01:25:25 PM
- Matter Transmutation: Some very expensive process which can transform one element into another, pricey enough it would be used in emergencies. I'm thinking something like the base technology being 100 of one mineral=1 of another, with research increasing the efficiency slightly. Normally, this would be an installation, but at high levels it could be a ship component, albeit a very large one and extremely power-hungry.
- Scrapping/Reclamation tech: Under CP, this would cover getting the most out of scrapped items in terms of reclaimed resources. Maybe even a recycling center installation.
- "Go to nearest unmapped/unsurveyed system" order for ships.
- Some kind of way of displaying and filtering systems in a list... "Show me all systems with unsurveyed warp points". I think you can do this on the galactic map, but I'm not sure how.
- A way to quickly see all task groups without orders, or all current task groups and their active orders, again in a list format. "Which freighter was carrying infrastructure, again? Task Group Freight-One? No... Task group Freight-Two? No..."
- Limits on the carrying capacity of planetary surfaces. I'm really surprised Aurora doesn't have this, but it seems you can build unlimited installations on any world. I'd like to see each world have some kind of 'maximum tonnage' of installations, based on its size and on how well adapted it is to you -- the more infrastructure you need to survive, the more 'waste space' your buildings have.
- More surface-oriented stuff, in general. Call me crazy, in a game already overloaded with detail, but I'd like more of a sense of worlds mattering, of cities and starports scattered over the surface (presenting individual targets for bombing), with land/sea mixtures. On the same lines, I'd like to see agriculture play more of a role and not be abstracted into infrastructure per se...I want the chance to find, say, farming worlds that might be mineral poor, instead of basing all my colonization decisions on mining. Likewise, "Luxury worlds"... some planets might be resource poor, but generate a lot of wealth through trade due to luxuries or just being a nice vacation spot. Wealth produced could be based on the number of commercial starports+infrastructure, and reduced by other installations which "lower the property values".
- Civilian universities: I often don't have enough administrators or scientists. Let me invest in the equivalent of DARPA, Student Loans, or other means of generating more bureaucrats and researchers.
- Control tech: Build better bridges or improve overall control structure on ships, leading to low bonuses to all ship functions. In effect, this would be 'built in' training. Missiles would load faster, damage control would be quicker, response time would be improved, etc. Not so much that training or grade could be ignored, but enough to show the effects of better computer systems, partial AI controls, ergonomic improvements, and so on.
- Multi-directional mass drivers: If I have two mass drivers on an asteroid, I'd like aim one at Earth for some minerals, and one at Mars for others. (I suspect this might be in-game already, but I can't figure out how to do it...)
- Icons for task groups and ships: This is probably a non-starter, but it would be nice to be able to assign icons to either task groups, or to task groups and ships, and to see those displayed rather than the traditional circles.
- Sandcasters. Old-school Traveller fans will know what I'm talking about. Commercial ships could carry these to provide some defense against energy weapons, especially lasers.
- Legendary non-command officers. Fans of Star fleet Battles will be familiar with this... every so often, produce a legendary Engineer, Gunner, Navigator, or so on, and let them be assigned to a ship, probably in the same way a team is -- a ship picks up or drops off an officer. They aren't commanders, but instead provide some bonus to a ship function: A legendary engineer acts like an additional Engineering Space, a legendary navigator increases effective speed by 5%, and so on.
Hopefully, at least one item on the above list hasn't been totally beaten to death already...
Post by: dgibso29 on November 09, 2011, 12:19:54 PM
I wouldn't mind a "Continual Capacity expansion to XXX tons" option. I often find myself needing an additional 3000 tons, or with an extra 15 tons that just laughs at me.
It would also serve to prevent it from eating all your hard earned minerals.
Post by: ZimRathbone on November 09, 2011, 11:38:00 PM
OK, first, let me qualify everything by pointing out that I'm a n00b and have seen only a fraction of what the game has to offer, so, if some of these are already deeply buried in the game
- A way to quickly see all task groups without orders, or all current task groups and their active orders, again in a list format. "Which freighter was carrying infrastructure, again? Task Group Freight-One? No... Task group Freight-Two? No..."
This does exist - its the Task Force Organisation Screen (ctrl-F4)
(http://)
Post by: LizardSF on November 10, 2011, 10:56:06 AM
This does exist - its the Task Force Organisation Screen (ctrl-F4)
(http://)
Oh, SWEET. Thank you. I saw that in the menu and kind of "blorped" over it, thinking it was the same as the one you get when you click the Star Destroyer icon. :)
Post by: Jacob/Lee on November 10, 2011, 09:54:07 PM
Post by: TheDeadlyShoe on November 14, 2011, 09:43:23 PM
1) In the industry/ build things panel, the percentage of capacity used should default to 100 (or ideally, however much industry is not being used) rather than 1.
2) PDCs should cost no minerals to assemble. This is annoying and the quantities are trivial. I would rather spend twice the assembly cost in a premium during production than have to micro the minerals into freighters.
3) Some events should be such high priority that they popup for the player - not just in the event log. An example would be a first contact or a new hostile contact.
4) Is there a reason new shipnames are always picked alphabetically? Well, rather, it seems like the program is reading each line in sequence rather than randomly picking one of the names. It would be nice if it was more random. Or even if there was an 'in order' checkbox.
5) Terraforming is a little too all or nothing. It would be nice if there were increased benefits from terraforming a planet to ideal for the species, rather than just crossing the Line of Tolerance and having everything be soopah-awesome. For example, perhaps wealth production or growth rate can't max out unless a planet is ideal in terms of temperature and atmosphere (+-very small from species norms) rather than meeting a tolerance minimum.
6) *NPR AI: I started an NPR on Titan, for a bit of kicks at the start of the game. I incremented poorly so they ended up nuking earth while I shot their fleet to pieces. Long story short tho, now they build single FACs and throw them at me piecemeal. The FACs typically stand no chance and the NPR must 'know' it since it's usually attacking my battlefleet on maneuvers. The NPR should try to build up a bit more. Unless this is just some quirk of aggressiveness settings... in which case that's awesome. ^^
Alternatively, perhaps its just seeing thermal contacts off the planetary sensor, since the range from titan <-> earth is extreme.
(I can't take the NPR out because it has 4 15kton beam bases and 2 15kton AMM bases orbiting its world. Oo)
I have more suggestions and thoughts and some +1s for others suggestions but I don't want to cause TLDR. Hehe.
Um, I know you arn't really supposed to make threads, but is it alright if you have a bigger idea to flesh out and label it with version number?
Post by: Beersatron on November 15, 2011, 12:00:03 AM
....
3) Some events should be such high priority that they popup for the player - not just in the event log. An example would be a first contact or a new hostile contact.
....
You can already set to see the events, if you are on the system map, go to the options on the left and select to show events, that way all events are shown. This works fine for just about every increment except for commander reassignments and combat - where the number of events is too much for the space set aside for it.
If you already knew that, then ignore little old me :)
Post by: TheDeadlyShoe on November 15, 2011, 01:02:20 AM
Maybe that should be on by default :}
OTOH tho I still think there needs to be a better priority structure for events WRT Interrupts. I get so annoyed with meaningless events interrupting a turn that i click through important events. And it would be easy to miss. It would be awesome to have selectable interrupt priority for auto-turns, next to the auto turn selector.
Priority
None - Events that would never warrant an interrupt, because they are too unimportant or have no player interaction. Life pods running out, commander retirements, geosurvey results.
Low - The low end of what currently interrupts, like engineer structure recoveries and unrest and contact lost reports.
High - More important interrupts
Critical - Events that should always interrupt, like first contacts and new systems and new hostile contacts
Post by: Marc420 on November 17, 2011, 05:27:42 PM
My apologies if this has already been mentioned, I'll admit to not reading the full 46 pages to get here.
The idea would be of buoys that are missile countermeasures. Ie, you tie something that makes heat onto a buoy and kick it out the missile tubes and hope that any heat-seeking missiles get confused and hone in on it instead. Or, they tie an EM emitter onto a buoy and do the same thing. Could maybe make one that works on Active Sensors in the same way in that it reflects or re-transmits on the right frequency as to look like a bigger target than it is to an Active Sensor. Back almost to the idea of tin foil to fool radars.
Actually, being able to tie these things onto a missile would be a fun idea too. Now its a target the enemy sees that's moving.
On the missiles and bouys, it sounds like you'd need to add three new properties onto the objects and design screens. These would be values that are added to the bouy or missiles signature. IE, if a missile already has a thermal sig of H, the value of the new thermal emitter property would be added to that to get the sig that a detector sees. One each of these properties for Th, Em, and As. After that, hopefully most of the sensor code would stay the same.
As I keep thinking, the idea also works as a ship component. Basically allow ships to be decoys that have say the Th or Em signature of a bigger ship. The stuff you could fit on a missile or buoy should only be able to emulate a small ship. To get an object that emulates your King Kong short range beam dreadnaughts, you'd probably have to load up a smaller ship with a bunch of these components that add TH, EM or AS return to a ship. Probably not high morale on that ship, but it would have the distinct tactical advantage that when as they try to come into firing range, the enemy is seeing 5 big superdreadnaughts and trying to figure out which to target, when in reality 3 of the 5 are cheaper decoys.
Of course, the interesting challenge I'm sure is to convince an AI to design, build and use these new counter-measure toys.
But, once I thought of this, I've decided I really like the idea of decoys/counter-measures that can be launched from a ship. And missiles and buoys seem close to doing it already.
Anyway, thought I'd toss that out there and see if anything comes from it. :)
Post by: UnLimiTeD on November 18, 2011, 12:57:20 PM
Post by: metalax on November 18, 2011, 01:34:15 PM
Post by: LizardSF on November 18, 2011, 02:07:27 PM
Based on my admittedly limited knowledge of Aurora, I think mechanically, it could go something like this:
Attachable Pods: Take a short time to be attached; can be attached without a naval yard. Pods cannot carry engines. Pods weigh 10% (arbitrary number) more than they "should", to reflect their connecting machinery and general inefficiencies. A ship has to have attachment hooks; these are a researchable component. The hooks normally take up 5% of the total tonnage of the largest possible pod and take one day per 1000 tons (arbitrary number) to attach a pod. Detaching a pod normally takes only 5 minutes, but research can shorten this (mainly, you might want to dump pods in battle to gain speed).
Modular configuration: Classes designated as being modular variants of each other take half as long to refit from one variant to another, but require significantly more maintenance (because so many components are designed to be removed or must be generic, rather than custom-fitted, there are more weak spots and inefficiencies). They should probably be tightly constrained in total mass, so that all ships in a "family" must be within, say, 10% of each other.
Post by: Shinanygnz on November 19, 2011, 04:41:02 PM
I've seen how something like this can be done with tractor beams, but I'd really like to see something like how Star Fleet Battles handles freighters, or the way the SFB Romulan Sparrowhawk ships work. Basically, you have a fixed hull which has engines, the bridge, the general structure, and some universal components, and then you attach modules to them. For freighters, in SFB, this mostly means "Cargo pods", "colony pods", "marine pods", and so on, but in an emergency, they can add weapons pods or carrier pods. For the romulan ships, a more complex method is used where the ships need time to be refitted, but the total time is short because the special function portions are modular and easily assembled or attached.
Based on my admittedly limited knowledge of Aurora, I think mechanically, it could go something like this:
Attachable Pods: Take a short time to be attached; can be attached without a naval yard. Pods cannot carry engines. Pods weigh 10% (arbitrary number) more than they "should", to reflect their connecting machinery and general inefficiencies. A ship has to have attachment hooks; these are a researchable component. The hooks normally take up 5% of the total tonnage of the largest possible pod and take one day per 1000 tons (arbitrary number) to attach a pod. Detaching a pod normally takes only 5 minutes, but research can shorten this (mainly, you might want to dump pods in battle to gain speed).
Modular configuration: Classes designated as being modular variants of each other take half as long to refit from one variant to another, but require significantly more maintenance (because so many components are designed to be removed or must be generic, rather than custom-fitted, there are more weak spots and inefficiencies). They should probably be tightly constrained in total mass, so that all ships in a "family" must be within, say, 10% of each other.
Good idea. Easier way to do the modular thing though I think - as we already have hangar bays, just have "module bays" that can handle modules you design to go in them. Add on a tonnage surcharge for the capability, say 10% so a 500 ton module bay would require 550 tons allocated on the ship. You can then design modules with whatever you want in them and have a shipyard task to swap them over at some discounted percentage of normal refit rate. Both the surcharge and swap out rate could be improved by tech research.
Real world navies are doing this already or in the very near future, look up the US Littoral Combat Ship and some new European frigates.
Post by: TheDeadlyShoe on November 20, 2011, 09:16:39 AM
Post by: blue emu on November 20, 2011, 09:42:42 PM
On the Shipyard Management screen, when you select "Continual Capacity Expansion" it would be nice if there was a check-box for "Notify when Shipyard reaches xxxx tons". Either that, or "Stop when Shipyard reaches xxxx tons".
Post by: TheDeadlyShoe on November 21, 2011, 12:08:10 AM
Maybe you should just be able to set your expansion target and it just does continual expansion.
Post by: dgibso29 on November 21, 2011, 12:09:25 AM
I wouldn't mind a "Continual Capacity expansion to XXX tons" option. I often find myself needing an additional 3000 tons, or with an extra 15 tons that just laughs at me.It would also serve to prevent it from eating all your hard earned minerals.
Guess we all like those even numbers.
Post by: metalax on November 21, 2011, 04:25:44 AM
That's really kinda how it sorta works already. If you do a fixed # expansion and cancel it midway you get the partial progress.
Maybe you should just be able to set your expansion target and it just does continual expansion.
The difference being that continual capacity expansion increases the ship yard mod rate as it goes while fixed expansions only add to it at completion/canceling part way.
I do like the idea of being able to set a target size for it to expand to.
Post by: sloanjh on November 21, 2011, 08:33:16 AM
The difference being that continual capacity expansion increases the ship yard mod rate as it goes while fixed expansions only add to it at completion/canceling part way.
I do like the idea of being able to set a target size for it to expand to.
Seconded.
John
Post by: sloanjh on November 21, 2011, 08:45:54 AM
I think the mechanism that best fits in with the existing military/civie dichotomy (and needing to be able to tow SY) would be to have each tractor unit have a tonnage rating for military ships, with that rating getting multiplied by 5x or 10x when towing civies/installation (or maybe even a bigger 25x or 100x when towing installations). The technobabble would be that the less violent maneuvers associated with towing civies (and even less so for installations) puts less strain on the link.
The other possibilities would be to have a max power throughput on the link (tonnage-times-speed) - if the power divided by the mass of "the tow plus everything the tow is towing", then the TG speed would be limited by power/total_tow_mass, or to have both military and civie - style tractors, with the civie able to tow more but only lock onto (and/or work when mounted on) ships with civie engines.
Note that the "power" limitation described above takes off the single-tow restriction - it allows daisy-chaining. If multiple tractor beams are allowed on a ship, then I also see no problem (other than pain coding it up :) ) with allowing multiple tows by a single tug.
John
Post by: Marc420 on November 21, 2011, 01:31:37 PM
(sorry if this is a repeat suggestion)
The role the player plays in the game is one of a fleet admiral directing an entire fleet. The fleet admiral normally doesn't have to tell a ship captain to make sure his ship is refueled and supplied. Its the responsibility of the captain to make sure his ship is ready to perform its missions, and this includes making sure the ship is fueled and supplied. The admiral might occasionally give an order to make sure all tg's in an important mission are refueled and resupplied before they leave, but the fleet admiral isn't constantly going to be telling his captains which gas station to go visit and how often. As such, I'd suggest automating the refueling and resupply of ships and task groups to the extend possible.
1) A ship or task group that is at the same location as a refueling source (colony, tanker ship) will automatically top up on fuel given the opportunity. The same for resupply sources and re-ammo sources. A ship's captain or tg commander is always going to grab the supplies he can for his ship at any opportunity.
2) The conditional-type orders on a tg now flip around. Since the tg commander is assumed to be looking for chances to resupply, refuel, rearm, the conditional orders available set limits on this. One conditional order would prohibit these action. Another conditional order would set a max range of how far the tg will travel to go re-up. The range can either be a distance within a system, or a number of systems to travel to re-up on logistics.
3) distribution of supplies and fuel within a tg should happen automatically. A tg commander isn't going to let a ship run out of fuel, then call home to ask what to do about it. If any ship drops below a certain fuel level, it should get refueled by its tg ships. In case of emergency systems failures, it should be possible to transfer supplies between ships to avoid having a component fail. For that matter, it should be possible to do damage control within a tg even if the ship can't store that many supplies. Who cares if the parts to fix the broken thingy came from a locker on this ship or were shuttled over from another ship in the tg.
4) The player should have the ability to either 'turn off' or set a reserve value on logistics sources. Thus, a colony might always be told to keep a million gallon reserve of fuel, and when that limit is reached it stops refueling ships. Also, you could have the concept of military and civilian supply depots. If a supply source is set to military only, the commercial ships won't resupply there.
This way, there's a loop that happens regularly(presumably when conditional orders are now checked?) that where each tg checks for supplies within the range that's set for the ship. If it sees an allowable supply source within that range (which can be zero), it automatically re-ups on fuel, supplies and ammo.
Example, you have a task group patrolling at a jump point in a system, but set to resupply from supply sources within the system. You then send a ship with fuel and tanker status into the system. The tg commander sees the opportunity to top-up his fuel reserves and gladly takes it. He flies his TG over to the tanker, refuels, then flies back. If as fleet admiral you don't want the tg leaving its post for even a short while, set its 'logistics range' to 0. Then, if you order the tanker to fly to the tg's location, the tg commander will then gladly refuel, but the TG won't leave its post to travel to the tanker. If as fleet admiral you don't want the tanker to refuel the local units as it flies off to another important mission, you could give orders to 'turn off' its tanker status until it gets where you want it to go.
This way, the game is less micro-managy for the player, and it simulates at least what our real-world simian race does which is to have a military that's full of scroungers looking to grab whatever they can for their unit.
Post by: LizardSF on November 21, 2011, 01:51:24 PM
Insert Order At Point....: I can't count the times I've done something like set up a huge list of orders, only to discover that I need to put a new order somewhere in the middle of the list. For example, I might have a freighter that's doing a run alternating mines and factories to a colony world. Meanwhile, in the system it's passing through, a scout has run out of fuel. To get it to join the fleet and share fuel means deleting all of the existing orders and re-entering them. Why can't I put an new order somewhere in the list?
For that matter, I'd love to have a "Hull Type Order" system that all ships of a class get as a default. For example, all "Geo Explorer" ships, regardless of class, get "Find the nearest system with unsurveyed geological bodies and survey them. When there are no more bodies to survey, find the next and make a path to it."
Also, instead of "A jump gate constructor makes a jump gate in XXX days", why not "It takes 10000 Jump Gate Construction Points (arbitrary number) to make a Jump Gate". A standard constructor produces 10000 a year. Two ships at the same gate each contribute their construction points. A 180 day constructor contributes 20000 a year, and so on.
Post by: TheDeadlyShoe on November 21, 2011, 04:35:52 PM
I think you are explicitly not supposed to be able to rush around with 10 construction ships and insta-jumpgate things.
Post by: LizardSF on November 21, 2011, 04:51:43 PM
It's not actually a construction project. It's like, wormhole stabilization.
I think you are explicitly not supposed to be able to rush around with 10 construction ships and insta-jumpgate things.
Fair enough. I can see the balance issues with rush-jobbing it.
Post by: Beersatron on November 21, 2011, 04:59:05 PM
For all I know there's a way to do this, but I can't find it...
Insert Order At Point....: I can't count the times I've done something like set up a huge list of orders, only to discover that I need to put a new order somewhere in the middle of the list. For example, I might have a freighter that's doing a run alternating mines and factories to a colony world. Meanwhile, in the system it's passing through, a scout has run out of fuel. To get it to join the fleet and share fuel means deleting all of the existing orders and re-entering them. Why can't I put an new order somewhere in the list?
This has been suggested a few times before but the problem lies in the language and variable type that Steve uses for storing the orders and also the fact that each order in the list changes the available orders following it.
So say you want to load Ken & Barbie dolls on Earth to drop off at Omicron Persei 8 which is three jumps away.
Load Dolls at Earth
Transit Jump Point to Alpha Centauri [list of available destinations changes]
Transit Jump Point to Coruscant [list of available destinations changes]
Transit Jump Point to Omicron Persei 8 [list of available destinations changes]
Unload Dolls at Omicron Persei 8
Now, say you want to go to a side route and pick up some Engines on Corellia, if you try to feed that into the middle of the order string you run the risk of all the subsequent orders not making sense because the action/destination isn't available.
I know that you could argue this is a complex example and also that you would add in a suitable loop to bring it back onto the original course. But, I think Steve has made it this way on purpose because it can't be relied on that everybody would be that good at ensuring no erroneous steps.
Or, I could be describing the reasoning completely wrong, my memory fades in an out :)[/list][/list][/list]
Post by: MattyD on November 21, 2011, 05:56:37 PM
Ruins being investigated by Spongebob Squarepants Xeno Team.
The Ruined City message in the events log, and the lack of change on the population summary page confused me.
Post by: blue emu on November 21, 2011, 08:24:36 PM
Given all the attention given to tractoring in terms of modular design, I think some sort of tractor "power" should be introduced...
I would certainly second any elaboration of the current tractor-beam system.
... even if Girlinhat and I are the only real "Modular Design" freaks on the forum. It would still be appreciated.
Post by: Marc420 on November 23, 2011, 10:51:58 AM
Make the missile warhead a Player designable component. This would allow for variations in the warheads on the missiles.
For instance, my quickie search of this thread on 'warhead' found a suggestion to mount a one-shot beam weapon as a warhead on a missile. That would be one idea for what could go on there. Here are some others.
Differentiate between an "Armor Piercing" warhead and a "High Explosive" warhead. Think of the current types of warheads as an HE type of round. They generally seem to blow a crater into the target's armor. An Armor Piercing type of warhead design would apply a different damage pattern that goes deeper into the armor, at a cost of less pure 'damage' explosive power.
You currently have 'enhanced radiation' warheads as a flag that could be set on the missile design, so the above could probably fit into the same system as just another flag indicating to use a different damage pattern.
However, my idea goes a bit further than that in that you could also have other specialty warheads.
-- Normal 'nuclear high explosive' warheads. Does the most damage pts per size of warhead. Using the current 'cratering' damage pattern.
-- Armor piercing warheads. Less damage pts, but formed into a special 'shaped charge' that does a better job of penetrating armor.
-- Enhanced radiation warheads. Against ships, this warhead does less damage, but kills more of the crew.
-- Chemical warheads. Does no damage at first. But spreads a chemical agent across an area of the ships hull that then slowly starts to eat away the armor in that area.
-- Biological warheads. Similar to chemical in that it does no damage but then starts to eat away the hull. Maybe at a slower rate than Chemical, but requires a different counter-measure to stop the agent.
-- Target markers. A type of chemical warhead that does no damage. But, various flavors of this could add 'heat', 'em emissions' or a stronger return on an active sensors. Basically, these 'paint' the target to make it easier to see and hit.
-- EMP warheads. Designed to unleash a strong EMP burst near the target ship(s). Attacks ships nearby with an attack that only effects electronics. Can effect multiple ships, but with effectiveness decreasing based on the square of the distance from target ship to missile explosion point.
-- An earlier post in this thread mentioned trying to put something like a one-shot 'beam' weapon on a missile warhead. Or I think I saw something somewhere about an "X-ray laser" warhead that could provide a powerful beam weapon attack. Both of those sorts of ideas would fit into this scheme of making the warhead a PDC.
Chemical and biological warheads could be combined with counter measures to stop the damage. A shipyard or maybe even a ship's shuttle could 'clean' the contamination off the ship. Just not likely to be something you'd want to do in the midst of a battle though. At least not in societies that would care for the safety of that shuttle crew.
In general, if the warhead design was made a separate piece from the rest of the missile design, then players could be given various options for different 'flavors' of warheads, each of which has a different type and amount of damage that it does for a given size package to fit on a missile. The system could generally work where a player designs a size 4 missile that's capable of handling say a size 2 warhead. Then, the player could design several different warheads to fit on that missile and move to producing those quicker since the missile part hasn't changed.
------------------------
On a different but related note, missiles that use Thermal sensors could tend to home in on the heat producing parts of a ship. Ie, heat seeking missiles would tend to head for the engines. Likewise, EM sensing missiles could tend to home in on things like Active Sensor components that are strong em emitters. Basically, just weight the DAC table differently by increasing the score of some components based on the type of weapon that's doing the damage.
Post by: LizardSF on November 23, 2011, 12:32:57 PM
Stealing from other games, I like the more exotic weapons from SEIV and SEV: Engine overloading weapons and weapon overloading weapons, in particular. These weapons make it easy to cripple enemy starships without destroying them, which has a lot of advantages if you want to board, but they're expensive to research, power hungry, and need planning to use effectively.
(I'm probably trending the wrong way in comparison to the core Aurora audience, in that I'd like to see more "weird" and "exotic" technologies like teleport bombs, gravity beams, and so on, and both the designer and the player base seem to lean towards harder sci-fi and more realistic physics. So it goes.)
Post by: TheDeadlyShoe on November 23, 2011, 08:15:37 PM
Specialist weapons also provide a lot of room for special enemies like the Star Swarm and Invaders. They could even be unique technologies to those races. The modular ships thread made me think it would be interesting ot have a unique-NPR that utilized modular ships instead of traditional ships... ^^
Engine overloaders from SEV were particularly interesting in that engines were the main Supply storage and most ship functions required Supply. So a engine-crippled ship was combat ineffective unless it was designed with emergency supply storage. It was a strategic mechanic above and beyond simply destroying enemy engines.
Post by: Caesar on November 28, 2011, 07:00:58 AM
We currently have normal missiles, laser warhead missiles and radiation missile warheads.
The radiation missile and normal missiles deal damage in one pattern, the laser warhead in another. Respectively:
Code: [Select]
WH = 9
Armor = 2
Normal Laser
--xxxxx-- ----x----
---xxx--- ----x----
x++++++++ xxxxxxx++
x: Damage
-: Armor
+: Internal Component
Yesterday my fresh squadron of warships fought a swarm. Their armor level was two and my warheads were level four. Sadly, I was not even able to damage any of their internals as I could penetrate only two levels of armor. Two shots in the same spot were needed to damage the ship's components. My poor fleet was summarily slaughtered, so I started thinking of new ways to deal with armor and missiles. I suggest a new type a damaging missile that instead of penetrating as far as possible damages only the top layer of armor where it hits, like this;
Code: [Select]
WH = 9
Armor = 2
Corrosive
xxxxxxxxx
---------
+++++++++
x: Damage
-: Armor
+: Internal ComponentThis kind of damage might seem useless at first, as you will need at least three shots to damage the internals of this ship versus the two of the normal missiles, but that is not the point of this missile warhead.
A normal missile will have to hit the exact same spot twice to deal any real damage if the targeted ship is well-armored. Corrosive missiles will be especially useful against larger ships as they will 'soften' the armor in large areas.
Take a new example (The missiles will strike the same armor areas.):
Code: [Select]
WH = 9
Armor = 2
Armor width = 25
Normal Corrosive Corrosive + Normal
---xxxxx----------xxxxx-- yyyyyyyyy----yyyyyyyyy--- yyyyyyyyy----yyyyyyyyy---
----xxx------------xxx--- ------------------------- ---xxxxx----------xxxxx--
xx+++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++ xxxxxxxx+++++++++++++++++
x: Normal Damage
y: Corrosive Damage
-: Armor
+: Internal Component
The corrosive missile will give the normal missiles EIGHTEEN possible strike locations in which they can maximize their penetration and damage the internal components. Two salvos of two normal missiles will provide a maximum of ten possible strike locations. The corrosive missile is also not influenced by the eternal (and infernal) 1,4,9,16,etc.. pattern. A better warhead is a better warhead.
Edit:
-- Chemical warheads. Does no damage at first. But spreads a chemical agent across an area of the ships hull that then slowly starts to eat away the armor in that area.
-- Biological warheads. Similar to chemical in that it does no damage but then starts to eat away the hull. Maybe at a slower rate than Chemical, but requires a different counter-measure to stop the agent.
I only read this suggestion after posting my own. No plagiarism was intended, although I think my idea is very similar except for the fact that this way of dealing with damage would be easier for the player to understand/for the program to process.
Post by: UnLimiTeD on November 28, 2011, 08:10:05 AM
The question is:
What would you do if you find an enemy with 3 Armor?
You'd have the same problem as now again.^^
Post by: Caesar on November 28, 2011, 08:27:16 AM
If you'd use normal warheads the chance would be much smaller that you hit the already damaged spot on the armor, as it covers less squares.
You should not use JUST the corrosive missile. You should combine it with normal warheads.
Post by: LizardSF on November 28, 2011, 10:03:07 AM
Post by: Gidoran on November 29, 2011, 12:56:37 AM
Very Large Arrays. If I'm remembering things correctly, you can make up for having crappier sensors by having more of them, pointing them all at the same thing, and then combining all the pictures. So while one crappy resolution sensor would only pick up a little bit, if you have a hundred, or a thousand... It'd add up pretty quickly.
The short-hand of how this could work is to make it so if you have a lot of sensors that are overlapping (Let's say you have 10 anti-missile sensors in a fleet), you could pick up targets from much further away than each one individually could because of the added resolution from stacking them together. I'm not sure if this is incompatible with the current paradigm of sensors in Aurora, though. If someone knows yea or nay, could they elaborate? I'd be appreciative.
Post by: UnLimiTeD on November 29, 2011, 02:53:19 AM
Post by: Marc420 on November 30, 2011, 09:36:19 AM
My suggestion would be to consolidate the various ways of setting orders into one system.
1) Show default and conditional orders in the main orders list. Do something perhaps like
Code: [Select]
Move to Earth
Refuel at Earth
Move to Mars
-----------
[C] If fuel less than [50%], then refuel at [nearest/largest] colony or tanker [within X jumps]
[C] If supplies less than [20%], then resupply at [nearest/largest] colony or supply ship [within X jumps]
[C] If speed less than [Max], set speed to [Max]
-----------
[D] Gravitational Survey on Next Survey Location [within X billion km]Where [C] and [D] of course represent the conditional and default orders. Have a fixed rule of Bottom to Top execution of [C] and [D] orders (within that group) to say that in case of conflicts, higher up the list wins.
2) Move the OOB and Cargo list portions of the Orders Tab over to the second 'special orders' tab instead. Put new controls for adding, editing or removing Conditional and Default orders to this area of the Orders Tab. They'll be room on the Special Orders Tab for the OOB and Cargo list since the controls for the default and conditional orders on that tab would go away. A little re-arranging and its possible to free up a column on that tab the same size as the space currently used on the Orders tab.
3) Controls for setting these orders could maybe look like the following.
Row 1 -- Three buttons for "New", "Edit" and "Delete". Edit and Delete are inactive unless something selected on the order list. Edit sets up the following controls to show the current state of that selected item in the order list.
Row 2 -- Radio buttons for "Conditional" or "Default" orders
Row 3 -- Drop down list showing available Conditional or Default order types based on radio button selection above.
Rest of area. Room for controls specific to an order type that appear in this area when an order is picked from the drop down list. So, for example, for 'refueling' orders, this could have controls for -- Percentage of fuel at which to trigger the order -- where to refuel (colony, tanker, etc), and a distance limit of how far to go to refuel [number of jumps]. The flow for a player giving the orders would be to put the controls in the "New" state (only needed to get out of an Edit mode possibly), select that they want a conditional order, select that they want a Refueling order, then, when these additional controls appear, set the order the way they'd like it.
I guess you'd also want an up and down control for moving the conditional and default orders up or down in their section of the list.
---------------------
I see two benefits to this. One is that it helps make the total orders that a ship has more obvious. The default and conditional orders aren't hiding off on another tab using this system. The second is that it would potentially free up the system to allow unlimited numbers of Default and conditional orders which are currently limited by the control design. This way, a player wouldn't be forced to choose the two conditional orders most important to him.
---------------
Along the same lines, if you could use the Naval Organizational Tab to apply Default and Conditional orders to groups of ships, that would be really cool. That way, the head of say my Logistics branch could set a standing conditional order for all of the cargo ships that says to Increase Speed to Max if doing less than Max Speed and easily apply it to all ships in that branch. Probably difficult to do under the existing system as that sort of command would have to worry about whether it changes existing conditional orders assigned to one of the two slots. But, in a more unlimited system, it just gets added to the list of each ship. (Hmm, would need a way to have the Logistics commander to say that this new standing order is "High" priority (ie, added to the top of the list and thus over-riding others) or 'Low' priority (ie, added to the bottom of the list and thus possibly over-ruled by other orders). Or, maybe you could make a new class of orders of [CO] "conditional organization" orders that fit in priority between [C] and [D]. That way, organizational orders would be always over-ruled by whatever specific orders already given to that TG.
Yeah, I know, I don't seem to make 'small' suggestions. :)
Post by: LizardSF on November 30, 2011, 09:44:10 AM
For example, "fleet policy" is "resupply if you're below 20% supplies". Whoops, all my warships just left their assigned route to the enemy and started going home!
Obviously, you'd need to be able to clear this on a ship-by-ship level. Of course, this opens up the possibility that you'd forget to clear default orders and have your ships do exactly the wrong thing... but that's kind of why we love Aurora, right?
"The enemy is in sensor range, Captain."
"Excellent. Order the missile teams to open fire."
"Erm, yes, well, we didn't exactly LOAD any missiles. We Refueled and Resupplied, but no one issued us orders to Load Ordnance, so, you know, we didn't bother."
Post by: Antagonist on December 01, 2011, 04:44:40 AM
Just a random thought I'm jotting down partially so I don't forget it right before I fall asleep, but:
Very Large Arrays. If I'm remembering things correctly, you can make up for having crappier sensors by having more of them, pointing them all at the same thing, and then combining all the pictures. So while one crappy resolution sensor would only pick up a little bit, if you have a hundred, or a thousand... It'd add up pretty quickly.
The short-hand of how this could work is to make it so if you have a lot of sensors that are overlapping (Let's say you have 10 anti-missile sensors in a fleet), you could pick up targets from much further away than each one individually could because of the added resolution from stacking them together. I'm not sure if this is incompatible with the current paradigm of sensors in Aurora, though. If someone knows yea or nay, could they elaborate? I'd be appreciative.
http://www.schlockmercenary.com/2003-06-24
Unrelated: Why no ticketing system to collect all these ideas, then use this thread as a discussion and not an archive?
How often does Steve go back and read ALL the old ideas?
And also, about all these fleet automated behavior ideas, I stand by my earlier idea of making AI behavior scripted and modifiable by players. This would apply both to the AI (which would need to be SIGNIFICANTLY smarter to deal with Newtonian physics, while Steve isn't an AI expert. Its also not the best use of his time IMO when he could be adding features, while outsourcing the smartening of AI to his fans.) and player fleet orders, which should be easy to customize and have programmed behavior.
Post by: LizardSF on December 01, 2011, 08:40:39 AM
Post by: LizardSF on December 01, 2011, 09:02:19 AM
(In a world where Steve has nothing better to do than add cool features to Aurora, I'd like to see generated names be user-controlled, so we could specify, probably in the racial profile scheme, something like, Missile names are in the form '%PlayerName Size %MissileSize Missile - %Warhead:%Agility%Speed', so the default name for a missile might be "Fireball 3 Size 5 Missile - 10:64:22000", for a missile with size 5, a strength 10 warhead, 64 agility, and so on. Another player might want missiles to be in the form of "Series %SeriesName, Class %PlayerName, Strength %Warhead Missile", so the generated name would be "Series Gygax, Class Fireball, Strength 10 Missile". )
While I'm suggesting name-related options, I'd love the following as options you can set on the class design screen, on the same tab you set ship names, etc.:
a)Any new ship of a class will re-use the name of a destroyed (but not scrapped) ship of the same or a related class, with a numerical addendum, so if the Gryphon class DD Manticore is destroyed, the next Gryphon class ship to be commissioned will be the Manticore II.
b)The names of any commander who dies in battle will be added to the pool of ship names for future ships of that class or related classes, overriding default naming schemes.
Building on the last, I'd love for there to be a generated list of "Died in battle" names, which could then be assigned to be the naming scheme for any future class of ships. This would be a dynamic list for each empire, and would obviously be empty at the start of play.
Post by: TheDeadlyShoe on December 01, 2011, 08:13:39 PM
Quote
While I'm still enough of a n00b that any alien race kicks my ass because I'm only just learning the basics of combat, the most common complaint I've seen about Aurora from those who've gotten past the "WTF IS THIS?" stage is "The AI is really stupid", that you've got this amazingly deep set of systems for detailed combat and an enemy that can't use it well enough to challenge a moderately experienced player. So, based on that, I'd second the idea of scriptable AI, as it seems that's one of those things which can be "outsourced" without undermining Steve's vision of the game.The AI is competent at combat. It's that it doesn't have a coherent research strategy like a player does. So if you go 50 years and an NPR goes 50 years and the NPRs tech isn't a match for you militarily.
Also, NPRs often get completely stalled by minerals shortages. You can get around this by SMing them excellent homeworld minerals deposits.
Bear in mind that the game is essentially built as a roleplaying mechanism, with multiple races played by the same person...
That said, I think AIs with preset ship designs and research priorities would be really cool. There's some problems with this approach, and a few ways to do it. But it would mean you could fight - for example - NPR versions of Steve's NATO and USSR factions.
Post by: jseah on December 03, 2011, 05:00:40 AM
Firecontrols require high speed imaging, connecting several sensors allows to see stuff, but to actually shoot at it, you need that picture without time delay.Firecons not having arrayed sensors makes sense.
A somewhat similar argument could be made for active sensors, although see below.
The same doesn't apply to passive. Telescope arrays can see what individual telescopes can't.
Active sensors can have the same mechanic apply only to the EM sensitivity portion of the active.
Post by: sloanjh on December 04, 2011, 12:43:14 PM
While posting in the Newtonian thread I had a wild idea:
Make the cost of a drive design (both jump and non-jump) go like sqrt(size), rather than size^2 (jump IIRC) or size^1 (non-jump, e.g. military, fighter, missile etc.).
The idea here is that an original design driver for Aurora was to discourage swarms and encourage large multi-role designs. That didn't work out, mainly (IMNSHO) because of linearity in design and production cost - "splitting" a ship design in two results in two smaller ships with the same total mass, cost, and performance. This penalizes multi-role ships because the unsplit ship will only be able to use one type of system (survey vs. military vs. jump vs. ...) at a time - it can only be at one place to do perform these roles at any particular time. Jump drive cost makes this even worse - large drives (ships) are discouraged and small drives (ships) are encouraged. Armor cost was intended to help with this, (it will go like size^(2/3)) but my experience is that the effect isn't really strong enough to notice in practice.
If the cost of propelling a single ship vs. two half-ships went signficantly down, then there would be a strong driver to offset the disadvantage of having "dead mass" on a multi-role ship.
Note that if applied to missiles, this helps to solve the "sandblasting with AMM is more efficient than big missiles" problem - 1xStr-4 missile is less expensive than 4xStr-1.
I realize this is a major disruption, and you probably won't have time to do it due to the work on Newtonian Aurora. OTOH, I don't think it would "wreck" the game mechanics, since the overall combat systems would remain the same - it would simply skew how the systems are lumped together (one big ship or several small ones). The only mechanics difficulty I see would be to decide the size at which to match the new costs with the old cost, i.e. what are "Mult" and "RefSize" in Mult*sqrt(Size/RefSize) - from this point of view it is very similar to the sensor range equation change. OTOH, I think it has a lot of up-side potential.
John
Post by: Antagonist on December 07, 2011, 05:20:00 AM
I can do it individually with the SM I suppose, but a game option would be useful too.
Related, a modifier that can reduce the high-end RP costs but leave low-end somewhat the same could be useful too. In my games for instance I generally avoid making size 50 sensors simply because of the prohibitive RP cost, while size 5 or 10 sensors don't bother me as much.
Post by: PTTG on December 07, 2011, 02:52:57 PM
Currently, only one officer can be fired at a time. I want to be able to retire dozens at once.
Post by: Zed 6 on December 07, 2011, 08:52:53 PM
"Retire ALL selected officers" (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,4420.0/topicseen.html)
Currently, only one officer can be fired at a time. I want to be able to retire dozens at once.
Sounds like a purge or maybe the Emperor has good cause to be so paranoid. ;D
Post by: DatAlien on December 11, 2011, 12:08:33 PM
It would be nice too to be able to change the boni of your Officer in SM. Another thing that would be nice if you could add shipyards in SM.
Post by: TheDeadlyShoe on December 11, 2011, 02:22:53 PM
Post by: Yonder on December 12, 2011, 02:56:04 PM
Im sure I suggested this befor or someone else did it, but it would be nice to set which the future Scientist can study at your Military Academy, I mean if you terraform every planet you settle on, you need no scientist with specialisation on Biology/Genetic.
I would like to have some sort of way to affect my Scientist makeups as well. Maybe you could pay a yearly "Scholarship" fund for any of the Scientist types that you want to, and that amount will influence the likely type and starting skill of your scientists?
(I'm playing a no-missiles game and a third of my scientists are very nice Missile/Kinetic weapons guys. ARG! It's almost enough to make me switch to Railguns/Gauss cannons.)
Post by: UnLimiTeD on December 12, 2011, 05:05:44 PM
Aside, I'd like to suggest that instead of everyone and their mother trying to avoid genetics specialists, make them useful.
Bioweapons come to mind, but I'd be happy already if it somehow ties into Ground Combat Strenght.
It could also improve Infrastructure efficiency by means of custom biospheres.
Post by: PTTG on December 12, 2011, 05:24:18 PM
Post by: Vanigo on December 12, 2011, 10:18:14 PM
Post by: PTTG on December 13, 2011, 10:09:28 AM
The AI is competent at combat. It's that it doesn't have a coherent research strategy like a player does. So if you go 50 years and an NPR goes 50 years and the NPRs tech isn't a match for you militarily.
How about we split AI a bit? It sounds like there's two or three big areas where the AI is rather weak:
-Tech Priorities
-Colony Priorities/mining
-Military Strategy (As opposed to tactics)
I see ways that these could be improved. For instance, NPR aliens could have "tech scripts" which would detail the priority they'd use to research things, randomly determined from the start. These scripts could even be selected by the player (for instance, if they want an enemy that specializes in a particular tech.)
I don't know how smart the AI is when it comes to colonies, but perhaps the SM could similarly point out some planets that NPRs will give priority for settlement.
Post by: PTTG on December 17, 2011, 02:10:45 PM
Post by: Antagonist on December 21, 2011, 07:25:46 AM
As for NPRs AI it's something I personally would leave to someone else and just download DonSomeguy's AI script pack v0.32 for my game, but it'd still be better than vanilla.
Another observation about customizable AI in scripts is that its not wasted effort for the day when Aurora II eventually happens. It's be a new codebase, but the scripts would still be valid with an assumed minimum of modification.
Post by: PTTG on December 22, 2011, 10:14:49 PM
Currently, all mining production is equally effective, assuming equal accessability.
Naturally, the more specialized a mining facility is, the less efficient it is. Perhaps going from 1,000 total tons of mixed output- say 100 of each resource- to only 500 total tons exclusively of duranium.
To expand on this idea, the reasoning is that when you find a planet with one highly accessible resource deposit, it is very rare that you will focus on developing that resource rather than simply look for a better body somewhere else with several less accessible deposits. It ultimately discourages you from having tactically-interesting "key resource" sources, such as a colony that provides plentiful tritanium but nothing else. If you lose that planet, you're forced to decrease your dependence on missile weapons but may be able to use something else.
Post by: Steve Walmsley on December 26, 2011, 06:38:13 AM
Specify Mining Production
Currently, all mining production is equally effective, assuming equal accessability.
Naturally, the more specialized a mining facility is, the less efficient it is. Perhaps going from 1,000 total tons of mixed output- say 100 of each resource- to only 500 total tons exclusively of duranium.
To expand on this idea, the reasoning is that when you find a planet with one highly accessible resource deposit, it is very rare that you will focus on developing that resource rather than simply look for a better body somewhere else with several less accessible deposits. It ultimately discourages you from having tactically-interesting "key resource" sources, such as a colony that provides plentiful tritanium but nothing else. If you lose that planet, you're forced to decrease your dependence on missile weapons but may be able to use something else.
I am a little concerned that might be unbalancing. However, in the dim and distant future when I finally get around to some type of planetary maps, I will very likely have deposits on the map and you will mine them separately - in which case you will have something similar to the above.
Steve
Post by: UnLimiTeD on December 26, 2011, 09:22:16 AM
Currently, mining a planet with less than 3 minerals in good concentrations is just not worth it, so having a speed-multiplier might be an interesting choice.
Like, 1+(#of deposits below 10)/X |(f.Ex X=10);
to be assigned to a single resource, which is thus mined faster.
Post by: LizardSF on December 26, 2011, 01:18:30 PM
Post by: Thiosk on January 08, 2012, 11:42:03 PM
Something works crazy with the way geo teams find minerals on a planet. Its drivin' me nuts.
Why is a geo team's effectiveness a function of the object size???
I put a geo team on a planet. Pop pop pop come the discoveries, then they're done, then next planet.
Put a team on an asteroid, and it takes forEVER to find ANYTHING.
Seems to me that anybody should be able to identify a couple deposits on a rock the size of a mountain with their generic DeVry university associates degree in Surveying. If anything, planets should be harder to find minerals on than asteroids and chunks, but take much longer to "tap out" so to speak.
Post by: UnLimiTeD on January 10, 2012, 08:41:15 AM
Post by: IanD on January 10, 2012, 09:35:23 AM
A planet probably needs a minimum population before a Cloning Facility can be operated to avoid inbreeding. About 1 million sounds about right to give a sufficient donor population. Above the minimum population a Cloning Facility could increase the population by an additional 150 clones per million population per year.
Size of facility – same as research facility
Transportable? - Yes
Workforce – 100,000 – most of the incubators would be monitored by computers. Clones would then be subsumed into the invisible infrastructure of Aurora.
Maximum output of clones per facility – 100,000 per annum (possibly could be increased by research).
Base level of clones produced – 150 per million planetary population.
Code: [Select]
The above is based very roughly on the UK egg donation figures in 2008.
Assume 500 donors per 50 million population (actual 417 per approx 65 million population).
Assume 15 eggs per donor (Actual 10-15), assume 100% success rate (Hey! Its science fiction!).
This gives the figure of 150 clones per million population.
Post by: PTTG on January 10, 2012, 10:06:09 AM
Post by: jaybud4 on January 10, 2012, 07:52:12 PM
--Set BY CONTROL, instead of global. No, I don't want you autofiring my missiles, thanks.
--Does not reassign weaponry. No, I don't want this gauss turret that was on a point defense FC being used alongside the offensive 80cm cannons.
--Status copies with assignments (or maybe targets). Yes, I want you ALL to autofire. Do it!
Post by: horza on January 12, 2012, 05:10:21 AM
Then I started feeling sick. Any more than an hour or so and I really had to stop. Not a problem with any other game, or with my day job of staring at a screen all day.
I've had this before, and it's to do with the combination of bue/yellow on the system map screen. Is there any easy way that the colour scheme could be made configurable?
I realise this is very much a minority request, but I know I'm not unique in having trouble with staring at certain colour combinations for too long.
Post by: Thiosk on January 12, 2012, 02:42:00 PM
Difficulty reading white and yellow on blue is well known from the old days of presentation technology, often causing dizziness or nausea.
Post by: Mel Vixen on January 12, 2012, 09:25:02 PM
Post by: IanD on January 13, 2012, 05:34:48 AM
Thus my experience is that if you switch on Invaders you probably only have 66-70 years of game time to play with. The reason appeared to be connected to the rate of Invader exploration. With the designer password it was possible to see they had explored hundreds of systems compared to much less for all other races. In the 5.42 game Invaders had explored 1118 systems (in a thousand star game!), seven of the NPRS had explored 100, 16, 6, 4, 88, 26 and 12 systems respectively, the player race had only explored 23 (I turtled). Precursors had knowledge of 184 and Star Swarm 75. That game lasted 66 years.
In the 5.14 game I don’t have the data for Invaders as trying to eliminate an Invader fleet in designer mode I crashed the game and eliminated such data for Invaders but the player race had explored 42 systems, five of the NPRs had explored 67, 78, 133, 174, and 2 respectively, While the Precursors had knowledge of 44 and the Star Swarm 32 systems. I would expect the Invaders to have had explored around the 1000 system mark going on the event record for them.
I guess you could limit the number of stars to a couple of hundred, but that means with the rate of Invader exploration they are going to find you pretty quickly. Another way would be to greatly slow down Invader exploration of the galaxy or if the Invaders discover a system containing either Precursors or Star Swarm to nullify that turn of exploration.
My choice would be to make Invader incursions a quite rare event so they would only intrude into a new system in the Galaxy once every 1 to 5 years, perhaps make it possible to specify this interval at the game start? I would not have them explore unless they find enemy ships or colonies when it would be reasonable for them to attempt the extermination of the foe.
I have started a new game with 5.56 without Invaders and 58 years, 80 systems explored I have had no slow downs what so ever – so far, although I may have eliminated the primary NPR early on!
Anyone have other thoughts
Post by: OAM47 on January 13, 2012, 12:25:50 PM
Post by: Stephan on January 17, 2012, 10:42:51 AM
Post by: Thiosk on January 17, 2012, 11:01:25 AM
I have started a new game with 5.56 without Invaders and 58 years, 80 systems explored I have had no slow downs what so ever – so far, although I may have eliminated the primary NPR early on!
Anyone have other thoughts
I do. I've talked about this previously. I think steve fixed it so that when you kill an NPR, its exploration ships surrender as well, so infinite-fuel and infinite-maitenance ships don't just chart the galaxy forever. I couldn't find the conversation, however.
I understand why we want alien exploration-- richness, vibrancy-- but until my graphics card is able to help with some of these operations and the operations can be spread to all 8 cores on my cpu... I'd rather grossly limit how much exploration the aliens can really do. My last strategy was to find NPRs as they spawn, and DESTROY WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE so they can't explore much.
Didn't work. Game still shut down after ~80 years.
Post by: Nathan_ on January 23, 2012, 05:34:19 PM
Post by: Havear on January 25, 2012, 10:34:10 AM
Post by: sublight on January 25, 2012, 01:07:08 PM
Inline with the Civilian Mining colonies and Civilian Shipping contracts, governments might be able to convert their cash reserves into assets. I think civilians charge 200cr per 100 rated mineral production, so perhaps they might charge 4x cost for construction (2x build cost, 2x again for minerals). If TN industry is 10points per 0.05million employed, and CI industry is 3 points per 0.05 million employed, then maybe the unemployed produce 1 point per 0.05 million employed. Divide by two for mineral acquisition, and perhaps 1production point per 0.1 million unemployed would be reasonable.
So, I'd like to suggest civilian manufacturing. 4x normal credit cost but no minerals needed. Payment upfront thank you. 1 item at a time, queue possible. Production rate something like 10 per million unemployed. Not only would this be a mechanic for post-carpet bombing recovery, but it would be really nice to have some way to get colony worlds to assemble PDC components themselves.
Post by: jRides on January 26, 2012, 09:36:21 AM
In My latest game, there is a backwater system, bypassed by better real estate further down it's warp chain, and being only a single jump from Sol meant it wasn't even required as a fuelling depot. Suddenly it became a front line system when one of the xeno scum races suddenly appeared through a previously closed warp point and proceeded to kill everyone and everything in system. Luckily being a single Jump from sol meant Home fleet could quickly deal with the situation. Home fleet left sol to deal with the incursion, leaving behind a squadron of ageing cruisers well overdue for refit, to mollify the populace.
I think in a case like this the people and politicians of Sol would be screaming for that Home Fleet to stay exactly where it was, and more so now as the war is suddenly next door. So I'm suggesting a series of Modifiers to change the civilian protection demand, - modifiers per enemy combat loss, +/- modifiers for range to nearest combat, +modifiers for own combat losses etc
This would of course, also depend on just how much unrest a garrison troop can deal with - is there a limit?
Post by: Havear on January 28, 2012, 03:03:01 PM
Post by: Nathan_ on January 30, 2012, 06:06:18 PM
Post by: UnLimiTeD on January 31, 2012, 04:00:28 AM
I have yet to have a commercial shipyard not do anything, while they produced ships.
Post by: Thiosk on February 03, 2012, 02:03:10 PM
Who knows.
i'd love an x/y display on the ship summary screen, showing available capacity vs total capacity.
Post by: welchbloke on February 03, 2012, 02:54:40 PM
Some display of available troop space might be nice. For instance, my divisional transport can plunk 30 units-- a division plus replacements-- at the drop of a hat. I can pick up the division easy-- but how many replacements can i fit on board? Which of the three troopships need to pick up some extra units?Seconded.
Who knows.
i'd love an x/y display on the ship summary screen, showing available capacity vs total capacity.
Post by: Thiosk on February 05, 2012, 01:36:24 AM
A: automatically hold fire.
B: hold fire and drop target.
Either case would be wonderful.
Post by: ExChairman on February 06, 2012, 03:05:46 AM
1: I mentioned this before, but I want to bee able to rename ground forces before i build them...
2: 2 types of engineers, 1 type able to build and Xenoarchelogy and one type that is a combat engineer, able to build groundbases and participate in combat, to dig out entrenched enemy troops/bases... Or something like that...
3: Be able to assign several battalions/brigade HQs at the same time to its parent HQ... Its abit tedious to do72 Heavy assault brigades one at a time...
Post by: TheDeadlyShoe on February 07, 2012, 04:59:07 AM
I like to only 'officially control' a limited amount of territory, yet the game defaults to my empire controlling every system I discover. It would be nice if 'Control Empire" was inherited from the system you jump in from, so if I jump from a non-controlled system into a new one, the new system is set to uncontrolled. Similar to name themes.
I actually think there's a lot of possibility for empire control in other terms, like it would be nice if supposedly friendly NPRs respected 'our' space. Hehe. I mean, I know you're supposed to play aurora against yourself, but still... ;)
Post by: Nathan_ on February 08, 2012, 04:55:51 PM
enhanced worker productivity in field x, requiring fewer of said workers to operate factories/shipyards/mines/etc. Maybe with a penalty to some other area as a result
Conciousness Patterning from the rigellian diary, combining hostile environment immunity with increased productivity at the very top of the tech tree.
Post by: Beersatron on February 08, 2012, 10:33:38 PM
Simulator Room
Available (or useful) only when a ship has a hangar or boat bay, used by the crew of any docked ship (be it a 250 ton fighter or 40k ton dreadnought I guess) to increase their TF Training rating. This would be at a considerably reduced rate to current Task Force Training so it isn't abused but it would useful for Planetary Fighter Bases, where you cannot train the attached Fighter Squadrons unless you have actual Carriers.
Post by: PTTG on February 08, 2012, 10:46:13 PM
Post by: viperfan7 on February 09, 2012, 11:17:50 AM
just thinking, we have enhanced radiation missiles and laser warheads, why not kinetic kill missiles, they would have no warhead, provide more peircing damage that would would look like a pyramid in the armor, something like 1-2-5, for damage, where it would spread out and weaken the deaper into armor it goes, increasing the speed of them increases the dispersion, and slightly increases the penetration depth, while increasing armor would increase the penetration , and slightly decrease dispersion.
They would do almost only armor damage, and have a very low chance of actualy damaging componants as they must hit the componant directly to do any damage, they could also be upgraded with a plasma coating or something like that that would cause damage to shields at the cost of greatly reduced armor penetration.
I'd say their best use would be for PD and anti fighter missiles, they would be useless for seiging a planet though
Post by: UnLimiTeD on February 10, 2012, 03:10:36 AM
Newtonian Aurora is probably for you.^^
Post by: viperfan7 on February 10, 2012, 07:54:27 PM
Well, in Aurora there is no momentum.
Newtonian Aurora is probably for you.^^
wouldn't matter, it doesn't work off momentum, it penetrates the armour and goes through the target, perfectly possible to do in aurora
Post by: ollobrains on February 14, 2012, 02:38:25 PM
Post by: Thiosk on February 15, 2012, 12:09:25 AM
I think this one is a no brainer. I pick up ship components, I might want to put some here, some there. Who knows.
But sometimes my salvagers need to drop them off. It would be great if I could order a salvage fleet to hit three or four targets, drop everything, then come back for more. Once you wreck a race, for instance, you have dozens of ships all with different components, which means salvaging some ships, and then clicking off each component that you picked up. Worse, once the ship is full, you don't get warning messages or anything-- it just stops giving you minerals and ship components.
This simple command would go a long way to helping.
As a corrolary--
Components salvaged by an empire with grossly superior technology-- ion drives by an ICF drive race, for instance-- should be simply converted to raw resource units directly.
Post by: Grunden on February 15, 2012, 01:16:26 AM
Command: DROP ALL SHIP COMPONENTS
Just so's you know, 'Unload all Installations' will do this already.
Post by: Thiosk on February 15, 2012, 01:58:41 AM
nevermind.
Post by: ollobrains on February 15, 2012, 01:45:44 PM
Post by: wilddog5 on February 16, 2012, 09:16:34 AM
Post by: ollobrains on February 16, 2012, 10:45:15 PM
Post by: TheDeadlyShoe on February 18, 2012, 03:12:00 PM
I was pondering training levels earlier and considering how weird it is that ships can be permanently 34% grade. It seems like it would be pretty straightforward to implement a way around that with slow crew grade degredation that uses the training level as its baseline. You could also in that case softcap grade levels instead of hardcap. So the maximum potential crew grade of a ship depends on the training level and the training rating of the current captain. You could also tie it into task force skills which would slow the rate of degredation.
Or to put it another way:
If you had training level 4 and a training 200 captain, your crew grade % could max out at like 40% (higher than now). However, if the captain moved on and was replaced by a training 0 captain, the crew grade would gradually decrease to 400 points (training level 4). This also opens up the possibility of elite formations.
SIDE NOTE - I think racial training level should be a wealth penalty/ racial trait of some kind rather than based off academies... linking officer graduations and crew training results in some oddities IMO. Especially since some militaries require a lot of crew and few captains and others require a lot of captains and few crew.
Post by: Thiosk on February 18, 2012, 06:13:45 PM
I really like the idea of crew training having something to do more than the current state of maxing it out faster.
Something to crunch on.
Post by: ollobrains on February 21, 2012, 03:05:06 PM
Post by: jRides on February 22, 2012, 07:43:41 PM
Post by: ollobrains on February 24, 2012, 08:04:09 AM
Post by: ollobrains on February 24, 2012, 08:05:47 AM
How about just a minor issue when u complete one contract and finish it and then goto next one instead of the last option being on screen the list resets to automated mine and u gotta scroll down is it possible for the game to remmeber the last installation u selected and keep it there for the next one saves a few seconds and is just a minor UI chnage just so it can remember the last option u selected
Post by: MehMuffin on March 04, 2012, 07:45:22 AM
Post by: Brian Neumann on March 05, 2012, 02:19:45 PM
Brian
Post by: welchbloke on March 05, 2012, 05:06:00 PM
When I set up a new game or race, I usually want to tailor the tech to fit some predetermined idea. If we could have some way to use the research all button within a single group of techs. My first thought was the same tech groups as are used for the scientist bonuses.Seconded, this is also how I tend to create my games. I have particular story I want to explore and set up the tech accordingly.
Brian
Post by: MehMuffin on March 06, 2012, 06:46:58 PM
Seconded, this is also how I tend to create my games. I have particular story I want to explore and set up the tech accordingly.Thirdended, this is how I like to set up my games too. And it would be nice not to have only one non-biology and genetics scientist.
Post by: Thiosk on March 09, 2012, 01:10:40 AM
Post by: Thiosk on March 09, 2012, 04:30:15 PM
We can SM in new empires... but not monsters! Lets make it happen.
Post by: TheDeadlyShoe on March 11, 2012, 01:14:10 PM
Post by: viperfan7 on March 14, 2012, 01:41:15 PM
Post by: MehMuffin on March 14, 2012, 01:50:48 PM
Post by: Stephan on March 14, 2012, 01:59:36 PM
Quote from: Thiosk link=topic=2828. msg47647#msg47647 date=1331332215
SM button for create precursors/swarm/invader wormhole.
We can SM in new empires. . . but not monsters! Lets make it happen.
You can already SM precursors, or so i think, using the ruins button, only system it doesn't work in is Sol. It just adds ruins.
Post by: clement on March 14, 2012, 02:45:20 PM
This growth could be linked to a technology like reactor tech and as the player develops better ways to generate power, it could feed into Mass Drivers as the ability to launch the projectiles at a higher speed.
Post by: Marc420 on March 16, 2012, 06:00:15 AM
Geo sensors would seem to be the most obvious. I guess I'm picturing some sort of ground penetrating radar or scanner working from a spaceships. Seems like that would have a pretty healthy signature on anyone running an EM scanner in the area.
Grav sensors? For game play, I'm tending towards yes. But I could picture either way. I guess I like the game play notion of a grav survey ship probing around with loud sensors looking for Jump points. Again, very noticeable to anyone running an EM scanner in the neighborhood. But I suppose I can also see those Grav Sensors being some sort of quiet passive sensors measuring tiny differences in gravity leading towards finding a jump point.
Right now, both Grav and Geo ships are rather stealthy in a system as neither sensor seems to have an EM signature. Maybe I can see Grav ships being stealthy as they probe around the edges of the system. But it seems like at the least Geo ships should be noisy as heck if they are scanning for minerals down in a planet. And for game play, I suppose my mind tends towards both being noisy, and thus both being something you really can't operate in a system where you aren't welcome.
Thanks!
Post by: welchbloke on March 16, 2012, 09:33:40 AM
Should either Grav or Geo Sensors have an EM signature? Or both? Currently, both seem to have zero.I've always seen grav sensors as passive. Basically a massive array of particle detectors and spectrometers. The same for geo sensors, with a bunch of hyper-spectral sensors rather than gpr or anything similar. That's the great thing about Aurora, you can fit it to your mental image really easily.
Geo sensors would seem to be the most obvious. I guess I'm picturing some sort of ground penetrating radar or scanner working from a spaceships. Seems like that would have a pretty healthy signature on anyone running an EM scanner in the area.
Grav sensors? For game play, I'm tending towards yes. But I could picture either way. I guess I like the game play notion of a grav survey ship probing around with loud sensors looking for Jump points. Again, very noticeable to anyone running an EM scanner in the neighborhood. But I suppose I can also see those Grav Sensors being some sort of quiet passive sensors measuring tiny differences in gravity leading towards finding a jump point.
Right now, both Grav and Geo ships are rather stealthy in a system as neither sensor seems to have an EM signature. Maybe I can see Grav ships being stealthy as they probe around the edges of the system. But it seems like at the least Geo ships should be noisy as heck if they are scanning for minerals down in a planet. And for game play, I suppose my mind tends towards both being noisy, and thus both being something you really can't operate in a system where you aren't welcome.
Thanks!
Post by: PTTG on March 17, 2012, 12:26:49 PM
In fact, what if geo sensors were very loud and very clearly geo-sensors? So loud, in fact, that they effectively jam other transmissions from the ship? So if you just have crude EM sensors and no thermal or active sensors, you couldn't tell a simple survey mission to a powerful missile cruiser that just happens to have a geo-survey device attached?
Post by: MehMuffin on March 17, 2012, 12:36:53 PM
Geo Sensors make sense as a suite of active sensors. Grav sensors, meanwhile, seem to me like they would be similar to those "gravity wave" sensors running off of lasers and all internally contained. Besides any EM from the power plant, they would be quiet.I feel like grav sensors make sense as active sensors (Maybe not as 'loud' sensors though) as you need them to tell how large the enemy ship is, and that seems like what a device that determined the strength of an objects gravitational field would do.
In fact, what if geo sensors were very loud and very clearly geo-sensors? So loud, in fact, that they effectively jam other transmissions from the ship? So if you just have crude EM sensors and no thermal or active sensors, you couldn't tell a simple survey mission to a powerful missile cruiser that just happens to have a geo-survey device attached?
Post by: LizardSF on March 17, 2012, 07:34:22 PM
I feel like grav sensors make sense as active sensors (Maybe not as 'loud' sensors though) as you need them to tell how large the enemy ship is, and that seems like what a device that determined the strength of an objects gravitational field would do.
See, I feel just the opposite. You can passively measure gravity by having super-sensitive strings or gyroscopes or other ultra-balanced objects that will reflect any distortion caused by an object moving nearby (computers automatically cancel all the effects of the ship's own motion and vibration).
I mean, right now, we're detecting alien planets entirely by passive gravitational sensors (stellar wobble), and in only about two decades, we've increased this sensitivity hundreds of times over. The technology of Aurora should be able to do the same thing.
Post by: Erik L on March 20, 2012, 01:47:11 AM
Post by: xeryon on March 20, 2012, 08:29:22 AM
Engineers affect maintenance rates, overhaul rates and damage control success with more engineer slots available with more engineering sections, maintenance facilities damage control and so on
Medical officers limit and reduce health/death of officers on ship which would become more relevant if ships and personnel were altered to have numerous officers on board.
Logistics/supply officers were tied more closely with cargo handling loading and unloading times for hangers, cargo holds, cryos and troops
Navigation officers could improve the speed with which the ship could travel
Sensor officers (not sure of official command title here) could reduce JP blindness, possibly increase sensor and FC ranges, modify ECM and ECCM effectiveness.
Each additional officer slot would be tied to a specific ship module. Allowing really large ships to potentially have several officers of one type: say a carrier might have 10 engineering sections so you could have 10 engineers on that ship. The Chief Engineer would have a full effect and the additional 9 would have a reduced rate cumulative effect that added to the chief's. This would limit exploitation.
I think this would go a long way toward personalizing each vessel. Each ship may have several officers on it and would be less of a blip on the screen and ensuring the survival of a single craft would have more weight.
Post by: praguepride on March 21, 2012, 10:36:47 AM
An idea could be that you create command "teams" and have those teams command the ship.
This would let you create your "dream teams" without having to assign each member individually over and over again. You set up command crews and assign them together.
Post by: xeryon on March 21, 2012, 11:27:36 AM
The major thing it would change would be how you deploy your ships and make you reconsider the risks of your strategies. Faced with losing one qualified officer or 10+ will change play styles. It would also alter ship designs and modules to accommodate desired officer layouts.
Post by: viperfan7 on March 23, 2012, 06:13:52 PM
Post by: Moonshadow101 on March 24, 2012, 02:09:25 PM
Besides that,
I find much of a ship's concept of "Power" to be weirdly arbitrary. I mean, why do shields eat fuel, while energy weapons draw their power from "Power Plants," which are magical devices that produce infinite energy (albeit at a limited pace) without any sort of input? I suppose most engines make sense, since they're essentially reactors that spit their energy out for thrust instead of turning it into electricity, but don't some engines (Ion comes to mind) actually require power input to function? I guess a Star-Trek style thing of having to shift a finite amount of energy around between different systems might be a bit more per-ship micromanagement than it wanted by most people, but it'd be nice if some of this stuff was clarified or made more uniform.
In more practical terms, I'd like it if we could define routes between key places. Like, if you have two Sector centers, the Sol System and the Hell system, you could define a series of jumps that bring you between them. Thereafter, when giving orders to task groups in either system, an order called "Route to <Other>" would be an option. I suppose this functionality is theoretically supposed to be provided by telling ships to go to planets in other systems and having it pathfind through jumps, but every time I've attempted to set up a complex circuit in this way things have screwed up. Having the player define the pathfinding seems like it would be easier.
Post by: TheDeadlyShoe on March 25, 2012, 07:30:21 AM
Post by: someanon on March 31, 2012, 09:36:00 AM
Also, while on the topic of officers, could it be made so the officers that don't have a bonus to crew training still be assigned to ships via the auto assign button, because going through and assigning 200 if them to disposable fighters so they gain experience is. . . painful.
Edit: I would love it if we had more options for system editing in sm mode, being able to add, remove or modify planets would be a godsend. And in the vein of editing, the ability to edit leaders bonuses in the leaders page would also be great.
One last thing; On civilian contracts. Sometimes it seems that really important contracts are just ignored in the face of better profits from moving goods around, so perhaps if it was possible to increase the payout value of various contracts manually, giving more control to the player in these things. I guess the player would need to put the contract above how much the goods pay per run, which might be hard to guess, so perhaps a trade routes screen, where it lists the value of shipping goods from one planet with >1mil pop (or whatever the arbitrary limit is) to another. I think it would be a good addition, and would add depth to the game.
Just some things to think about, in between working on newtonian aurora.
I will probably add more to this message as I think of neat things I think would benefit the game.
Post by: Steve Walmsley on March 31, 2012, 03:16:32 PM
When I set up a new game or race, I usually want to tailor the tech to fit some predetermined idea. If we could have some way to use the research all button within a single group of techs. My first thought was the same tech groups as are used for the scientist bonuses.
Brian
I have added a new "All Field Res" button next to the All Research button. This works in the same way as the All Research button except it is restricted to tech systems in the currently selected research field (Construction and Production, Energy Weapons, etc.)
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on March 31, 2012, 03:21:42 PM
A quick search of Suggestions doesn't show this, but a means to construct conventional industry. Perhaps construction rate is based off population. Some means of eventually clawing your way back to space after elimination of construction factories and mines.
I haven't included this because it is pretty cheap to convert conventional to TN industry. I think some way of using population to build construction factories and mines is probably one option - I just need to find a mechanic that allows you to recover without also giving a massive production boost to very large populations.
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on March 31, 2012, 03:23:50 PM
A friend who plays would like me to forward the suggestion that it be possible to have civilian shipbuilding contracts, utilizing the invisible civilian shipyards to build commercial ships for the empire.
Possible in the long term. I am considering changing civs so they become more much self sufficient. They would build their own shipyards, build their own ships, mine their own minerals, etc. At the moment, civ ships are built by invisible shipyards and use invisible minerals :)
Steve
Post by: sloanjh on March 31, 2012, 11:01:13 PM
Possible in the long term. I am considering changing civs so they become more much self sufficient. They would build their own shipyards, build their own ships, mine their own minerals, etc. At the moment, civ ships are built by invisible shipyards and use invisible minerals :)
Well 90-ish percent of galactic mass *is* dark matter.... :)
John
Post by: Steve Walmsley on April 01, 2012, 06:52:50 AM
Well 90-ish percent of galactic mass *is* dark matter.... :)
John
Hmm! How about a dark-matter alien race? You can't actually detect their ships or lock them up but they can fire on you. "I can see you Kirk, can you see me?". Actually, it is April 1st so perhaps not :)
Steve
Post by: jseah on April 01, 2012, 12:26:04 PM
Minerals per year could be limited to a maximum of the amount in the ground. (to avoid asteroids being insane)
Post by: Steve Walmsley on April 01, 2012, 01:17:19 PM
Could I ask for a game simplification (similar to no maintenance) where minerals don't run out? Basically mines don't reduce minerals in the ground.
Minerals per year could be limited to a maximum of the amount in the ground. (to avoid asteroids being insane)
The easiest way to handle this would just be to SM yourself a very large amount of minerals
Steve
Post by: jseah on April 01, 2012, 03:31:09 PM
I could always do it manually of course, but automatically would be nice.
Post by: wilddog5 on April 02, 2012, 01:19:46 AM
Post by: Sloshmonger on April 03, 2012, 12:46:15 PM
Can a project (Industrial, shipyard modification, ground unit training, shipbuilding, etc) that uses a mineral that has more demand than availability (Projected Usage greater than Stockpile Plus Production) be colored differently (red text)?
It's handy to know that the Uridium shortage that Earth experiences will halt production of the Nimbus-class cruiser but not the auto-mines needed to rectify the situation.
Post by: metalax on April 03, 2012, 01:51:22 PM
Post by: Steve Walmsley on April 06, 2012, 12:15:35 PM
Some display of available troop space might be nice. For instance, my divisional transport can plunk 30 units-- a division plus replacements-- at the drop of a hat. I can pick up the division easy-- but how many replacements can i fit on board? Which of the three troopships need to pick up some extra units?
Who knows.
i'd love an x/y display on the ship summary screen, showing available capacity vs total capacity.
I have added a couple of summary lines to the "Cargo Carried" section of the task group window that shows total space available and total capacity for both troop transport bays and combat drop modules. For example:
(http://www.pentarch.org/steve/Screenshots/TroopSpace.PNG)
If you need to see which units are on which ship, you can already click the Show Ground Units checkbox just to the left of the Ships list on the same window.
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on April 06, 2012, 12:34:43 PM
I mentioned this before, but I want to bee able to rename ground forces before i build them...
In v5.70, you can rename ground units that are being trained. If you click Add Task and then Rename, its functionally the same as naming before training. With the Rename button though you can also change your mind about the unit name partway through training.
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on April 06, 2012, 01:05:08 PM
2 types of engineers, 1 type able to build and Xenoarchelogy and one type that is a combat engineer, able to build groundbases and participate in combat, to dig out entrenched enemy troops/bases... Or something like
The existing Engineer Regiment is now the Construction Brigade. Apart from the name change, everything is the same as before.
There is now a new Combat Engineer battalion, which has the same combat strength and cost as a Marine Battalion. Instead of the marine bonus for fighting on ships, it has double strength when attacking or defending a PDC.
I've also corrected the bug of starting races having access to TN ground forces they have yet to research.
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on April 06, 2012, 01:11:38 PM
3: Be able to assign several battalions/brigade HQs at the same time to its parent HQ... Its abit tedious to do72 Heavy assault brigades one at a time...
If you transfer a brigade HQ to a new division HQ, any attached battalions will be moved with it, so you should only need to move brigades around rather than individual battalions.
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on April 06, 2012, 01:33:51 PM
In two recent campaigns with Precursors, Star Swarm and Invaders switched on using Aurora 5.14 and 5.42 I managed to reach year 68 and 66 years respectively of the game, before the turn delays became intolerable, the record being one day of gaming taking six weeks of real time. When the designer password was available it showed most of the delays were due to the Invaders interacting with Precursors or Star Swarm. However towards the end it was difficult to positively identify what was causing the delays. Only two or three times in the 5.42 game was the slow down due to Invader interaction with NPR races, which was invariably fatal for the NPR.
Thus my experience is that if you switch on Invaders you probably only have 66-70 years of game time to play with. The reason appeared to be connected to the rate of Invader exploration. With the designer password it was possible to see they had explored hundreds of systems compared to much less for all other races. In the 5.42 game Invaders had explored 1118 systems (in a thousand star game!), seven of the NPRS had explored 100, 16, 6, 4, 88, 26 and 12 systems respectively, the player race had only explored 23 (I turtled). Precursors had knowledge of 184 and Star Swarm 75. That game lasted 66 years.
In the 5.14 game I don’t have the data for Invaders as trying to eliminate an Invader fleet in designer mode I crashed the game and eliminated such data for Invaders but the player race had explored 42 systems, five of the NPRs had explored 67, 78, 133, 174, and 2 respectively, While the Precursors had knowledge of 44 and the Star Swarm 32 systems. I would expect the Invaders to have had explored around the 1000 system mark going on the event record for them.
I guess you could limit the number of stars to a couple of hundred, but that means with the rate of Invader exploration they are going to find you pretty quickly. Another way would be to greatly slow down Invader exploration of the galaxy or if the Invaders discover a system containing either Precursors or Star Swarm to nullify that turn of exploration.
My choice would be to make Invader incursions a quite rare event so they would only intrude into a new system in the Galaxy once every 1 to 5 years, perhaps make it possible to specify this interval at the game start? I would not have them explore unless they find enemy ships or colonies when it would be reasonable for them to attempt the extermination of the foe.
I have started a new game with 5.56 without Invaders and 58 years, 80 systems explored I have had no slow downs what so ever – so far, although I may have eliminated the primary NPR early on!
Anyone have other thoughts
Thanks for the detailed report. It does sound like making Invader incursions more of a rare event would be a good idea. Therefore I have decreased the chance of a wormhole appearing and I have halved the chance of an incursion. I've also placed significant restrictions on the number of Invader survey ships. They will still explore a little but far less than at the moment. More along the lines of a normal NPR.
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on April 06, 2012, 01:37:03 PM
I say that terraforming should be moved to Biology.
Changed for v5.70. I had already done this for Newtonian Aurora so it makes sense to make the change here as well.
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on April 06, 2012, 01:40:29 PM
While posting in the Newtonian thread I had a wild idea:
Make the cost of a drive design (both jump and non-jump) go like sqrt(size), rather than size^2 (jump IIRC) or size^1 (non-jump, e.g. military, fighter, missile etc.).
The idea here is that an original design driver for Aurora was to discourage swarms and encourage large multi-role designs. That didn't work out, mainly (IMNSHO) because of linearity in design and production cost - "splitting" a ship design in two results in two smaller ships with the same total mass, cost, and performance. This penalizes multi-role ships because the unsplit ship will only be able to use one type of system (survey vs. military vs. jump vs. ...) at a time - it can only be at one place to do perform these roles at any particular time. Jump drive cost makes this even worse - large drives (ships) are discouraged and small drives (ships) are encouraged. Armor cost was intended to help with this, (it will go like size^(2/3)) but my experience is that the effect isn't really strong enough to notice in practice.
If the cost of propelling a single ship vs. two half-ships went signficantly down, then there would be a strong driver to offset the disadvantage of having "dead mass" on a multi-role ship.
Note that if applied to missiles, this helps to solve the "sandblasting with AMM is more efficient than big missiles" problem - 1xStr-4 missile is less expensive than 4xStr-1.
I realize this is a major disruption, and you probably won't have time to do it due to the work on Newtonian Aurora. OTOH, I don't think it would "wreck" the game mechanics, since the overall combat systems would remain the same - it would simply skew how the systems are lumped together (one big ship or several small ones). The only mechanics difficulty I see would be to decide the size at which to match the new costs with the old cost, i.e. what are "Mult" and "RefSize" in Mult*sqrt(Size/RefSize) - from this point of view it is very similar to the sensor range equation change. OTOH, I think it has a lot of up-side potential.
John
In principle, I think I might in inclined to do something along these lines. I'll have to give it a lot of thought though.
Steve
Post by: schroeam on April 06, 2012, 02:17:48 PM
Making a Corps, or Army, headquarters would also give the top field commander somewhere to go. Right now in my game I have Colonels commanding Regiments (Battalions), Brigadiers commanding Brigades, and Major Generals commanding Divisions, with three Field Marshals commanding the senior division on my most heavily populated planets. Having a Corps, or Army, Headquarters Battalion, along with the reorganization of ground units above, would allow Field Marshal Killemal Alyens to command the entire invasion army of six divisions.
Just a thought.
Adam.
Post by: Thiosk on April 09, 2012, 12:11:29 AM
I've been playing Anno a lot lately-- ever try that out? One thing you do that is very similar to aurora is set up supply lines to regularly move goods from colonies to the home base. One thing that is a little annoying in aurora is setting up distribution commands-- regularly resupplying worlds that require a pittance of minerals is annoying (maintenance worlds!). I'd love to take a merchant fleet, have it pick up some number of every mineral, then go from world to world trying to bring the mineral ammounts up or down to reserve. That way, your world that is a net consumer of duranium but exporter of corundium, will both get duranium delivered, and send corundium on its way, with a single command, rather than a complex set of instructions that cannot be reordered mid stream in the current engine.
Tied into reserve levels, all one would have to do is build the logistic fleets and send them to each planet. Set the reserve levels for the planet, and the ship will continue going from place to place ad infinitum. The major ultra key to this working is that the command should not spew error messages if it fails. If it gets to the planet and can't drop off part of its load, it just doesn't-- it will try to get it on the next circuit. If it gets crammed full of some mineral, the player will just have to increase capacity. Needs a trigger to break infinite loops, though.
Fuel and maintenance supplies should have analagous commands.
Tanker command: refuel colony from tankers to reserve. A spot to set a fuel reserve needs to be supplied. If there is more fuel than X, it will try to load fuel from the planet (the planet is now a producer). The ship then goes to the next position on the train.
Post by: Steve Walmsley on April 09, 2012, 11:33:26 AM
I'll go ahead and repost my request for logistic supply line commands because im seeing sexy activity for a step up in nonnewtonian aurora.
I've been playing Anno a lot lately-- ever try that out? One thing you do that is very similar to aurora is set up supply lines to regularly move goods from colonies to the home base. One thing that is a little annoying in aurora is setting up distribution commands-- regularly resupplying worlds that require a pittance of minerals is annoying (maintenance worlds!). I'd love to take a merchant fleet, have it pick up some number of every mineral, then go from world to world trying to bring the mineral ammounts up or down to reserve. That way, your world that is a net consumer of duranium but exporter of corundium, will both get duranium delivered, and send corundium on its way, with a single command, rather than a complex set of instructions that cannot be reordered mid stream in the current engine.
Tied into reserve levels, all one would have to do is build the logistic fleets and send them to each planet. Set the reserve levels for the planet, and the ship will continue going from place to place ad infinitum. The major ultra key to this working is that the command should not spew error messages if it fails. If it gets to the planet and can't drop off part of its load, it just doesn't-- it will try to get it on the next circuit. If it gets crammed full of some mineral, the player will just have to increase capacity. Needs a trigger to break infinite loops, though.
Fuel and maintenance supplies should have analagous commands.
Tanker command: refuel colony from tankers to reserve. A spot to set a fuel reserve needs to be supplied. If there is more fuel than X, it will try to load fuel from the planet (the planet is now a producer). The ship then goes to the next position on the train.
I have added a new "Load/Unload Minerals to Reserve Level" order. This will first attempt to unload every mineral type but only up to the colony reserve level for that mineral and then attempt to load every mineral type above the reserve level. If there is no loading or unloading at the destination, the fleet will move on to the next order.
I've also added a "Load/Unload Fuel (To Set Level)" order. You specify a reserve fuel level as part of the order. The fleet's tankers will either unload fuel to bring the colony up to the reserve level or attempt to load excess fuel above that level.
Finally, I've added a "Load/Unload Supplies (To Set Level)" order. You specify a reserve maintenance supply level as part of the order. The fleet's supply ships will either unload supplies to bring the colony up to the reserve level or attempt to load excess supplies above that level.
Steve
Post by: Thiosk on April 09, 2012, 11:47:48 AM
Post by: TheDeadlyShoe on April 09, 2012, 03:11:36 PM
Post by: Steve Walmsley on April 09, 2012, 04:00:46 PM
regarding the 'infinite minerals' thing... running out of minerals is the #1 reason NPRs crap out... It's hard enough feeding the maw of your industry as a player, even with the relatively rich Sol system and forward planning. NPRs have a lot more trouble handling it. So every time I find an NPR homeworld I give it fantastic quantities of minerals at middling accessibilities. This kind of works but it does nothing for NPRs I know nothing about or for pre-generated NPRs. It would be nice to not have to worry about that... xD
That's not a bad idea. I might add something to help out NPR capitals rather than all NPR populations.
Steve
Post by: Thiosk on April 09, 2012, 09:33:38 PM
Auto-hyperdrive is generally avoided because of the performance hit implementing it would cause.
Would it be possible instead to build a gravity drive that worked inversely proportional to gravitational field? Grav drive ships would travel quite slow near the star and central planets, while beyond the current hyperdrive range would be able to travel at hyperdrive speeds. Rather than flags and database checks, maximum speed is simply a function of the position and size of the closest stellar body, where large chunks of that speed function are averaged so a star would have 4 total speeds over its whole distance range rather than a continuous variation (something like 10%, 25%, 100%, hyperdrive.
Post by: wilddog5 on April 10, 2012, 01:10:44 AM
This won't work as it would cause the same problem as the auto hyperdrive (distance checks every incro), only diff is that insted of checking if it is in the hyperlimit it would have to also calc to speed divisions and select the nearest
edit: what about marking planets and JPs outside the huperlimits as hyper targets (body traveling from and to are yes use hyper drive of it crosses the limit no, so travles at normal speed) this means that there is only one check (when it starts travel or when the orders are made) should also work for AI/ Civs
Post by: Thiosk on April 10, 2012, 03:11:04 AM
Post by: Thiosk on April 10, 2012, 01:44:59 PM
Why do you use orbital habs? I use them to build giant (100,000 t) maintenance facilities over major planets.
The way I see things like terraforming modules and maintenance facilities-- both are utterly useless unless present in large numbers; and 200 tons short of capacity makes that first 100,000 tons maintenance space entirely useless as well.
The advantage of modules is no population requirement since they are automated, but a higher cost in material and limitations of scale to shipyard size.
There has been some suggestion for modular design in the past, and such designs have had some success with tugs, etcetera.
The Concept: A fully modular design into which modules constructed and shipped to a planet may be loaded into the space station over decades. The station core would be quite expensive.
Each module added would be quite expensive.
The scale would be functionally limitless, however.
This also opens the door to STC style construction, as ever larger modules could be built and loaded into the station.
An alternate construction style is there could be slots-- a station (limit 1 per planet) could have three slots, and the players could build (OR FIND!) modules to attach to each of those slots. Perhaps the player needs maintenance capacity, so we slot in 3 of those ultramodules. Research and construction could increase the number of slots.
Post by: MehMuffin on April 10, 2012, 05:23:19 PM
I'd like to see more in-depth life pods, maybe a standard crew module could hold the current lifepods, but additional versions could be researched with things like landing capability, encrypted signals to avoid pickup by aliens, engines, and life support systems that could last for a set amount of time?
Post by: Rastaman on April 14, 2012, 04:30:25 PM
100 tons and 5 Mercassium per cargo handling unit on ships is really cheap. On one example freighter, they take up 0.3% of ship volume and cut the loading time from 80 days to 2 days, on another it's 0.5% and from 10 days to one day. And this is the basic tech level 1 handling system. There is too little reason to build a commercial spaceport. They should feel more significant, not like an afterthought. Something a new colony can be proud of.
Possible solution.
1. Cargo handling systems are to be (much) larger and (much) more expensive. Only one can be installed per ship.
2. Spaceports: There is a maximum ship/cargo hold size a port can handle per level. Ports still have their loading time bonus, or better the cargo handling system kind of bonus, which is more effective. Cargo handling systems on ships only add their bonus if the port facilities are insufficient.
This way there are large bulk carriers that can only be processed by larger ports, and smaller freighters servicing smaller colonies. You cannot just increase your freighter capacity if you don't have the necessary port capacity, or loading times are much more of a problem.
Post by: xeryon on April 14, 2012, 06:00:29 PM
This way players could have a little oversight on line creation and management. I know on one of my games it would have been a god-send to have had a civilian line founded at one of my outlier colonies.
Post by: xeryon on April 16, 2012, 02:59:18 PM
We have the ability to alter the atmosphere of target planets for the purpose of making them more or less habitable but our actions have no effect on the habitability of the planet.
Some examples that come to mind:
Excessively populated planets might require continual adjustments to the atmo to keep it in the habitable ranges.
Extreme mining might alter the orbit, the atmo or even cause a body to physically decay. (ussugu suggested this)
Heavy industrialization might need atmo management on a regular basis as well as cause radiation levels to increase? (Maybe rename it to pollution levels and not just radiation as it is the dust which causes a more major issue than the actual radiation if I remember correctly)
Post by: viperfan7 on April 18, 2012, 12:31:27 PM
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,4811.0.html
Post by: chrislocke2000 on April 19, 2012, 05:41:53 AM
A new method of generating systems relative to one another would really help here, possibly link based on the xy coordinates of other systems on the system map. Alternatively something like the Space Empires game when the systems are generated and mapped upfront would be great. In this case it would just map system locations, warp point locations and connections and that's it to save on creating a huge data base right up front. You would leave the rest of the system generation until you actually visited the system.
On another note, a mini map of the system to help navigation would also be a great help for when you are trying to track your way round all your systems.
Finally if we could have a highlight on the system map of where the currently selected unit is that would help searching for the thing when you have x number of Giliese systems already! I find I'm often doing this when my survey craft finish one system and I'm trying to figure out where to send them next.
Post by: xeryon on April 19, 2012, 08:38:28 AM
Post by: jRides on April 23, 2012, 07:22:39 AM
What would help me immensely would be if I click on or, preferably, double click on a system in the galactic map that the system map and the main population and production pages would update to the system in question. I keep doing this when playing as it seems like it should be the logical action when manipulating the map.I agree with this, I know the SYS MAP button is there which does this, but would it be much of a hassle to swap around the sys map button with the system summary we get from double clicking now?
Post by: HaliRyan on April 23, 2012, 08:01:11 PM
Select a starting system, add a system it connects to, add a system that that system connects to, so on and so forth. A system should only be added once. Then when you have a fleet on one end of your empire that you want to transfer to the other end 20 jumps away you move it to the nearest highway system, give it a 'join highway' order or some such, and follow that with a 'leave highway at x' order where x is one of the systems listed, and it fills in the jump orders for the intervening systems.
Or just a 'travel to system x' order would suit me fine as well. ;D
Post by: xeryon on April 23, 2012, 09:04:03 PM
Highways.
Interesting idea.
That is similar to something discusses previously. When it came up before it was in the context of defining trade routes for civilian ships to follow. No reason why defining trade routes couldn't be expanded to travel routes in general.
Post by: Moonshadow101 on April 23, 2012, 11:42:09 PM
Post by: Haji on April 29, 2012, 12:38:08 PM
What I'd like is some form of saying to an NPR: do not approach. As it is right now, an NPR will just go... everywhere. When I play alone, it may not be such a big deal, but when roleplaying that means many NPRs who didn't have to be enemies will be. Govelha host may be an example from NATO vs Soviets campaign. If there was a way to tell them "don't come here", a war could be avoided. I have three ideas how that could be accomplished. Please note I have no idea how hard to programm, and by extension, how hard to implement those ideas are, so they may very well be unworkable.
1. A button avaiable only for SM that places a kind of waypoint on the map, that selected NPR will not approach closer than 50 million kilometres (the value is taken from the hat; it may diffrent or, perhaps better, adjustable). So, if you put such a "don't approach flag" close to a jump point, a NPR won't enter it.
2. A somewhat more complicated option is similar to the above. Give a waypoint with adjustable range, that the NPRs will not approach to anyone, as normal, non-SM part of the game. However, it will not work unliterarly. If NPR is hostile, for example, he will ignore it. If the waypoint is in his own system, he may not only ignore it, putting it may damage relations (this basically means, you're damanding part of his own territory - not nice). This of course is just a rough draft. Such a "don't come here" flag may become extremly overpowered, which is why I kind of prefer the SM version.
3. A ship (normal, in-game) that closes the part of jump point he sits on. For example, we have two systems A and B connected by jump point. If the ship sits on B side of the point, you cannot enter A from B, but you can enter B from A. What will that do? Basically, a NPR will have two choices: either leave the point alone, as it is not accessible, or fire on you ship. Once destroyed, the point is cleared. That means, that while neutral/friendly NPR won't be able to translate the point, hostile ones will just shoot it and move on. Plus, checks can be made to see if a presense of such a ship is irritating enough for NPR to either make diplomatic relations suffer or even go to war.
Those are just my ideas of course. But to be honset I care less about how it is done, as much as whethever it is done. It seems in my current, role-playing campaign, I will have to go to war with NPR becuose he enters where he should not.
Post by: chrislocke2000 on April 30, 2012, 05:15:04 AM
Similarly it would be great to be able to tell civilian ships which systems they should not enter and to stop them from trading with NPRs. It makes going to war with NPRs due to the above even more of a pain.
Post by: DatAlien on May 01, 2012, 07:27:53 AM
Some mechanic that tells you how much characters you can put into a field or how deep can your naval organization be (I spent 1 hour of assigning parasites to branches only to have them cut off when I moved the parent branch one node deeper (and is organization really spelled that way, the z looks strange)) (And now I deleted my carrierfleet instead of removing a branch :o)
And I would like being able to group all ship classes in squadrons (esp. FACs)
Post by: Steve Walmsley on May 01, 2012, 02:10:27 PM
is organization really spelled that way, the z looks strange)
I think that is due to the invasion of an alien species from across the great ocean. Legend has it they may be from a long-lost colony that has strayed from the true path. Their Zs (commonly referred to as Zees rather than the correct terminology of Zeds) have been infiltrating for several years and also killing off the indigenous Us.
Steve
Post by: Moonshadow101 on May 01, 2012, 02:44:43 PM
Bee Cee Dee Eff Gee ?AECHE? Jay Kay Ell Em En Pee Que Arr Ess Tee Vee ?!?DUBBA-U?!? Ex Zee.
Post by: Havear on May 01, 2012, 07:36:55 PM
Also, I'd like to suggest adding an "Projects in Queue" row to the table showing research projects. It would shave a lot of time searching through dozens of queued projects for a certain scientist if I could just glance at number remaining. Something like
| Current Research Project | Project Leader | Research Labs | Annual RP | RP Required | Completion Date | Queue | Pause |
| LG Salvage Module 750 | Toby Shepard - LG 55% | 25 | 22400 | 7636.8 | 16th March 2267 | 2 | No |
...and a third edit. It would be nice if Microwaves could disable engines on ships. Right now I've only considered them useful for knife-range against shielded or fire-control happy opponents, but mesons bypass shields and can damage the things shooting you, and anything fire-control happy at beam range is going to have WAY too much parasitic weight to be a useful combatant anyway. IMHO, microwaves sound like something which would be perfect if mounted on a boarding ship, until I realize that A) It doesn't help boarding in any way since the ship is still moving, it just now can't shoot at you and B) If the ship is shooting at you in the first place, why the crap are you sending in a boarding team?
Post by: bean on May 02, 2012, 11:30:43 AM
I think that is due to the invasion of an alien species from across the great ocean. Legend has it they may be from a long-lost colony that has strayed from the true path. Their Zs (commonly referred to as Zees rather than the correct terminology of Zeds) have been infiltrating for several years and also killing off the indigenous Us.Speaking as a member of said invasive species, I like Us. On the other hand, nobody here accepts them. And what's this about Zeds? I've never heard that.
Steve
Post by: xeryon on May 02, 2012, 12:08:03 PM
Post by: HaliRyan on May 02, 2012, 02:02:35 PM
The people in our hat also add unnecessary consonants to their letter sounds.
Most people here that I know say 'Zee', although there are a few that say 'Zed'.
I still spell with all the U's though, screw that lazy 'color', 'armor', 'honor' stuff.
Post by: xeryon on May 02, 2012, 02:50:08 PM
Post by: Steve Walmsley on May 02, 2012, 03:34:26 PM
And what's this about Zeds? I've never heard that.
In the UK (and Canada too I think), the last letter of the alphabet is known as Zed.
Steve
Post by: boggo2300 on May 02, 2012, 04:44:41 PM
In the UK (and Canada too I think), the last letter of the alphabet is known as Zed.
Steve
heh hem, you forgot the rest of us :P
Matt
Post by: Steve Walmsley on May 02, 2012, 05:21:20 PM
heh hem, you forgot the rest of us :P
Matt
Sorry :). I should have just said the English speaking world outside the USA says "Zed".
Actually, I could shorten that to the English-speaking world says "Zed" :)
Steve
Post by: xeryon on May 02, 2012, 08:27:27 PM
Post by: bean on May 02, 2012, 11:10:20 PM
On another note, how did we get here in this thread?
Post by: Steve Walmsley on May 03, 2012, 03:33:31 AM
And you would be correct. We do not speak a traditional English in the USA, but he rest of the world doesn't have an alphabet song where the last line rhymes. So ha!
An excellent point :)
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on May 03, 2012, 03:39:02 AM
I noticed quite a while ago that American English departed from English English a while back. Which does make sense. The rest of the English-speaking world had political ties to Britain long after we did.
On another note, how did we get here in this thread?
Well briefly, first there was the whole "taxation without representation" thing, then an accident with some tea, then you caught us a bad moment while we happened to be fighting the French, the Spanish and the Dutch at the same time, the dastardly French helped you out (although gratitude for that has been lacking in recent years :)) and then you got started on the serious business of mangling the language. Although its worth mentioning you gave us a hand a couple of times when the Germans started touring Europe and language differences seemed slightly less important at that point :)
Steve
Post by: xeryon on May 03, 2012, 08:44:58 AM
Post by: bean on May 03, 2012, 10:37:07 AM
Well briefly, first there was the whole "taxation without representation" thing, then an accident with some tea, then you caught us a bad moment while we happened to be fighting the French, the Spanish and the Dutch at the same time, the dastardly French helped you out (although gratitude for that has been lacking in recent years :)) and then you got started on the serious business of mangling the language. Although its worth mentioning you gave us a hand a couple of times when the Germans started touring Europe and language differences seemed slightly less important at that point :)I meant "how did we get to discussing this in the suggestions thread?" I am familiar with the history of American Independence. (The teaching of history over here isn't that bad. Yet.) And I think we've more then repaid the French for their help. The couple of times the Germans were touring... :)
Steve
Though honestly, I'd just get rid of English entirely. It's more trouble then it's worth.
Post by: Erik L on May 03, 2012, 11:11:26 AM
Post by: HaliRyan on May 03, 2012, 11:42:42 AM
England has no kidney bank. But it does have a Liverpool.
Erik, why must you make me hate you? :'(
Post by: Erik L on May 03, 2012, 11:59:17 AM
Erik, why must you make me hate you? :'(
Don't you realize that puns are the highest form of comedy? ;)
Post by: MattyD on May 03, 2012, 01:12:14 PM
You are dead to me Sir.
You may laugh at my slippers, at the dandruff decorating the collar of my shirt. You can mock the grey fluff that gathers in my belly button, and now strangely in my ears.
There are many things about me which can be subjected to ridicule... which thinking about it has not done my self esteem a lot of good throughout the years..... but your hate filled rhetoric has almost brought me to tears, quite frankly I am amazed at the vitriol directed at the city that gave me life, dole and a mustache.
I just hope I can manage to sleep tonight in spite of your post.
And I'll think you'll find John Bishop is the highest form of comedy*
*Elements of this sentence are not necessarily true.
Post by: Erik L on May 03, 2012, 01:48:01 PM
I changed the name of my iPod to Titanic. It's syncing now.
When chemists die, they barium.
Jokes about German sausage are the wurst.
I'm reading a book about anti-gravity. I can't put it down.
Are those pleas to desist I hear? ;)
Post by: wedgebert on May 03, 2012, 02:27:26 PM
Post by: UnLimiTeD on May 03, 2012, 02:54:33 PM
Post by: ardem on May 04, 2012, 03:19:02 AM
Yes, the general consensus here in my part of the US is that ye of the island far to the East of us are long lost brothers. You know the ones: They show up at the family reunion and drink too much and cause a scene and generally embarrass you. They have a funny accent and don't visit the dentist often enough but they are really swell people and would give you the shirt off their back if you needed it.
Us Aussies are like the cousin that comes over once in a while, and then you both get too drunk on what ever power drink your have been scoffing. You pick a fight either with the neighbourhood bully or the poor kid that your always make fun of, and 'expect' us to join in the neighbourhood brawl that then continues.
Seriously you both need to sit down and take a long hard look at yourselves.
Post by: xeryon on May 04, 2012, 07:52:03 AM
Seriously you both need to sit down and take a long hard look at yourselves.
I couldn't agree more. Really, we need to stop picking fights and just get together and have more BBQ parties.
What's funny is that from a US perspective Brits and Aussies are considered to be the same people just with northern/southern accents. Clearly not the reality, but that is the stereotype here.
Post by: Moonshadow101 on May 04, 2012, 05:23:39 PM
Post by: Erik L on May 04, 2012, 06:29:34 PM
Post by: Steve Walmsley on May 04, 2012, 07:00:13 PM
Just remember, only to the Ozzies does this make sense.
LOL, throw another shrimp on the barbie, mate :)
Steve
Post by: xeryon on May 04, 2012, 08:20:36 PM
I'm not sure I like Xeryon being the official U.S. representative. I've never been in an environment where Australians and Brits would be considered anything but entirely different folk. : /
I am certainly not an official anything. I guess you would have to live in the middle of nowhere where anyone not a redneck farmer is a "damn foreigner". lol
Post by: Havear on May 06, 2012, 04:25:20 PM
Post by: boggo2300 on May 06, 2012, 04:55:24 PM
Just remember, only to the Ozzies does this make sense.
I'm pretty sure theres only one prince of darkness Erik, you mean Aussies, we say Oi much more frequently than SHARONNN!!!
Matt
Post by: Erik L on May 06, 2012, 05:55:16 PM
I'm pretty sure theres only one prince of darkness Erik, you mean Aussies, we say Oi much more frequently than SHARONNN!!!
Matt
Hmmm hordes of incoherent Ozzies yelling "Oi!"
Post by: georgiaboy1966 on May 07, 2012, 07:30:01 AM
UGGGH, this can be irritating at times.
Post by: boggo2300 on May 07, 2012, 04:36:21 PM
Hmmm hordes of incoherent Ozzies yelling "Oi!"
Oh! you've been to St.Kilda then?
Post by: backstab on May 08, 2012, 01:23:47 AM
Hmmm hordes of incoherent Ozzies yelling "Oi!"
Only when copious amounts of VB are consumed
Post by: Nathan_ on May 08, 2012, 03:17:15 PM
Double U.
Post by: Jackal Cry on May 08, 2012, 07:31:06 PM
I got this game roughly a week and a half to two weeks ago. So far, I love it. My worst experience was getting all the windows to come up on my monitor, but that was not so bad -- I simply told my computer I actually had two monitors (which is not true) and then moved the windows over, then shut down the false monitor. I'm actually a little afraid of the v5. 70 changes because I fear they'll make the game harder to pick up and learn. However, I should get on to my topic.
I knew there would likely not be the option to do this, but nevertheless I proceeded to attempt it anyway. I designed and built ships carrying "dummy" missiles with no warhead, and practice anti-missile missiles to shoot them down with. After time I got the ships up and armed, moved them to some waypoints, and fired the dummy missiles. Unfortunately, I found no option that allowed me to fire my weapons at either my own ships or my own parasite vessels (such as missiles). I wish such an option existed.
There are a few ways to go about implementing it, and it depends on how realistic you want to be. The first option I see is to set up specific checkboxes that allow individual parasites and ships (and perhaps PDCs and planets) you control to show up as possible targets on the Task Group and fire control areas -- basically, anywhere you'd normally find an enemy target. If you attach an on-click warning on the checkbox that says, roughly, "Hey now, your own ships will show up as potential targets with this option selected," it will keep people from accidentally shooting at themselves -- or at least giving them no excuse if they do.
The other way I see is to add on to Task Force Training, in a way. Suppose you implement a new system of flags that marks ships as being on an "exercise", perhaps a "live-fire exercise" as well or instead. This will allow selected ships to not only fire upon others designated with similar flags as if they were enemy vessels, but also detect them with their passive and active sensors. As the player, you would naturally be able to see all of your vessels at once, but in this case your ships would not. Whether exercises count for training points in the way that standard automated Task Force Training does is simply a matter of what would be best for the game. The system works well either way. (Though as a player, I naturally would wish it did, as I want the game to be as big and encompassing as possible. )
The second method is my favorite idea, and it does not seem like implementing such a system would be so difficult. A menu window for configuring it all would certainly appear simple to the player. The player could designate individual Task Groups with certain flags, which can be thought of as teams. A "red team", "green team," "yellow team," and so on. Ideally you'd get to name the various battle groups whatever you'd like. Perhaps there'd be an upper limit to how many Task Groups can carry the same flag (and perhaps it could even be determined by Command & Control research) but certainly more than one. In the "Exercise" or "Exercises" window, as I name it, there'd be simple lists to designate who is hostile, friendly, and neutral toward whom.
The next question is whether or not these fights will be for real -- whether the exercise is Live-Fire or not. Like having exercises give training value to your Task Groups, the option of having exercises be Simulated or Live-Fire could be an *option*, meaning both exist in the game, or it could be forced to be one or the other. For my player ideals, both Simulated and Live-Fire exercises would exist.
Suppose the exercises were Simulated. What would occur would be that ships track each other using their actual sensors, but when they fire missiles, only a simulated blip representing the salvo appears. In all respects it'd have equivalent performance to the actual missiles you have loaded (or maybe your ships can shoot any missile their launcher could fire, whether it's actually loaded or not). In essence, you fire Fake missiles that deal Fake damage to a target's Fake health tracks (shields, armor, internals). If a target is destroyed in such a manner, it acts like a wreck for the duration of the current exercise -- or, said differently, it turns off its sensors and plays dead. I'd imagine FACs could return and embark in it but they could not leave again.
Simulating beam weapons is a bit more difficult. I guess it'd depend on RP perspectives if you think your technology can "simulate" lasers, mesons, and physical projectile rounds. Game-wise, I imagine it'd be easy to implement: the weapons deal Fake damage and have Fake HTK tracks, just like missiles and their launchers. (As it is, we don't have to worry about ammunition for kinetic "beam" weapons anyway. If we did, well, Simulated exercises would not use ammo. ) Simulated missile launches, by the way, would use up a Fake ammo count, too, and you'd still have to reload your magazines if you ran out, from a collier (or a colony!) taking part in the exercise.
Live-Fire exercises would be, essentially, fighting your own ships as if they were true enemies, but a question arises: should there be a limiter to keep ships from destroying each other, or having crew members die? It may be more prudent to leave Live-Fire exercises out, as AMM-, ECM-, and weapons-testing would be done perfectly with Simulated exercises. An idea to force Live-Fire exercises to exist would be to prevent certain weapons from being simulated; however, I believe having research options that "allow" you to simulate various beam weapons would be an unnecessary headache, and that they should not be added. All exercises WOULD use fuel, maintenance supplies, and time, however, just like regular Task Force Training.
I believe it would be best to include "Simulated" or "Simulated-Fire" exercises, but not Live-Fire exercises. I smile to myself when I imagine that high-powered microwaves could not be simulated, and that pretend fire-fights end up actually shorting out electronics and sensors. Still, we must keep the best interests of the game in mind.
Now, about exercises themselves. I believe different types of exercises could be implemented, something more than the simple "Us vs. Them vs. Them Too. " You'd select the type of exercise as you were establishing the various flags for your Task Groups, in the (so-called) Exercise window. The goal of these options is to control how the combatants behave. (I'll finish here before I mention possible AI-control during exercises. ) You'd have different options to select in the Exercise window for each flag and for each Task Group. Ideas I have now are simple, like "only use beam weapons," "only use missiles," "keep foes at X range or closer/further," "attempt/do not attempt boarding actions," "do not launch FAC," and so on. If you have two teams, and you set them both to use only beam weapons, then they'll have a beam weapon duel. But perhaps you don't want one particular Task Group on the team to suffer that limitation. In that case, you simply deselect it for that group. In essence, assigning a particular standing order to a team will assign it to each Task Group on that team, but technically standing orders are issued on a group-by-group basis. What these orders would do is deny you the ability to perform certain actions, although "keep foes at X range or closer/further" would be difficult to enforce in such a human-assisted control scheme.
Having the AI control one or more sides in an exercise could greatly ease things. Watching the computer fight itself always sounds like fun! But really, assigning one or more sides to computer control could make exercises more fun to play out, even if you're only really doing them for testing or RP purposes. In cases of AI control, the standing orders I mentioned last paragraph still work just fine. The downside is that the AI, as I gather from these forum boards, is stubborn and direct. The upside is you're playing with a computer and not entirely by yourself!
Finally I come to the most important aspects of implementing this system: the logistics of it in the game's design. Here's what I think works best. Please do not take my quoted sentence as literal -- the spirit behind the quote is what is important:
- Exercises can be canceled at any time, like Task Group Training.
- A checkbox in the Exercise window would read "Do not show exercise events in the event log" and would do precisely that. You will get an immediate "XXX exercise has begun" message (so that Aurora doesn't pause after the next five seconds) and an "XXX exercise has ended" message later, but nothing in-between. I wish the event log itself were more robust and usable (like not giving me errors when I set the messages displayed to 20 instead of 200), but that's another essay.
- When you select a Task Group participating in an exercise in the F12 Task Group menu, you see "THIS TASK GROUP IS ON A BATTLE EXERCISE", similar to the Task Group Training message. By the way, I really like how noticeable and succinct that message is.
- Exercises can be named, so you can have different exercises going on and distinguish between them in the event log
- The Exercise window would either be a button on the F12 Task Group menu or slaved to an F key that isn't yet used. I think the former option works better.
This post ended-up being about seven times longer than I originally set out for it to be. I get easily caught up in suggestions.
Post by: Nathan_ on May 09, 2012, 02:39:48 PM
Post by: Erik L on May 09, 2012, 03:22:53 PM
I really wish I could stage mock battles with my own vessels.
[ooc]big snip of a good idea[/ooc]
I've suggested this multiple times :) Though not quite to this degree of detail. Currently the only way is to make a copy of the database, SM a race in, and give them some ships, then duke it out. When you are done, copy the backup database back to live and go one. Rinse and repeat as necessary.
Post by: Jackal Cry on May 09, 2012, 09:52:22 PM
While this isn't the main place for error reporting, I may as well post it now as it relates to other suggestions. I've managed to zoom out so far in one system (the scale reads 24 LY) that anything I try to do in that system results in an error 6 Overload message. Any attempt to zoom in or center the camera on anything creates an Overload *error* and crashes Aurora. Attempts to do anything else give an Overload *warning* and then perform the action, to an extent. I can zoom out further, but cannot zoom back in. I looked for a way to directly set the zoom level in a system, but could not find one. I had hoped such a setting would solve the issue. I tried other things too, but they did not work.
So, my suggestions:
- Add a way to directly set the zoom/scale of a system from the F9 System Information menu, Task Group menu, or regular map.
- Add a line to the F12 Task Group menu that says where a task group is currently located: include at minimum the system, but hopefully also whether they're sailing In Space or orbiting a body (and list what body it is). Currently I need to click the Center On Task Group checkbox and then see where they are, then uncheck that box and continue.
- I'd like to have a Tandem design window where I can design missiles, turrets, and anything in the Design window, and see these three things side-by-side. That is, I would like a window that has missiles design, turret design, and Design design right next to each other, keeping the windows the way they are now. As the windows are now, that MIGHT be just the right size to take up most of the screen. Alternatively, one window with large tabs to easily swap between the various system design windows would be quite nice. It'd be even better if it included little summary windows of what's currently up in the other two design screens, so that you don't have to keep clicking back and forth to refresh your memory of the missile's statistics or the turret's armor. Honestly, I think Aurora needs this.
- To add to my currently existing asteroid miner Task Groups, I build mining vessels and initially store them in a temporary Task Group so I can move them to where my other mining vessels are and then combine the two groups. This process is really clunky, especially when various ships finish production at different times but I want them to go to work immediately. I can either make and delete Task Groups every time my ships are produced, or I can deal with a "This Task Group Is Not Currently Located At This Planet" message every time I try to build a ship into my Temporary Task Group.
-- Either the F12 menu needs to be streamlined (but I have no real ideas how)
or
-- You could do away with empty Task Groups having any set location. If the Task Group is empty, it should not have a defined location, and should not be giving me confirmation messages every time I want my shipyards to construct new vessels into that Task Group. I would like to see this change.
Post by: Havear on May 09, 2012, 10:39:27 PM
Post by: majortopio on May 10, 2012, 05:09:15 AM
But I would love to see an auto-rename feature for moons of planets. Right now, when I rename a planet, all of its moons retain the "---- X Moon X", which ruins flavor. Instead of having to go through all of them and rename them, which can be a time consuming task when there's 30 of them, it would be nice to have an autorename feature like that of solar systems and their planets. Just a flavor-related thing :)
Post by: ussugu on May 10, 2012, 08:21:12 AM
That way, I don't have to worry about where the empty fleet goes. It just disappears.
Post by: Steve Walmsley on May 10, 2012, 12:43:56 PM
I have a relatively small suggestion, at least I think it's small. Not knowing VB, I can't really say programming-wise.
But I would love to see an auto-rename feature for moons of planets. Right now, when I rename a planet, all of its moons retain the "---- X Moon X", which ruins flavor. Instead of having to go through all of them and rename them, which can be a time consuming task when there's 30 of them, it would be nice to have an autorename feature like that of solar systems and their planets. Just a flavor-related thing :)
Actually, you've spotted a bug here :)
The moons should pick up the parent planet name if they don't have a player-assigned name. However, this code wasn't taking account of the fact the parent planet itself may have been renamed. I've fixed this for v5.70. If you rename a planet, any moon should now use that name unless the moon itself has also been renamed.
Steve
Post by: Havear on May 10, 2012, 12:46:26 PM
Post by: majortopio on May 10, 2012, 01:03:21 PM
Quote from: Steve Walmsley link=topic=2828. msg49724#msg49724 date=1336671836
Actually, you've spotted a bug here :)
The moons should pick up the parent planet name if they don't have a player-assigned name. However, this code wasn't taking account of the fact the parent planet itself may have been renamed. I've fixed this for v5. 70. If you rename a planet, any moon should now use that name unless the moon itself has also been renamed.
Steve
Awesome! That'll save a great deal of time :)
Post by: ardem on May 15, 2012, 02:51:47 AM
When there are issue such as minority or population overload I think it is unnecessary to display unrest unless it is rising. If you have enough troops to set it to 0 again we should not have to see multiple log messages, which just spam every turn.
I suggest a slight coding change here.
Calculate the military deduction first and minus the total
Calculate the unrest second and add to the total
If the total is =< 0 Calculate the difference and display in the log there there was an increase or decrease of unrest
If the total is less then 0 set it to 0.
This way there is only one error message with unrest, and if it increase you know you have to increase the troops. You could display in the one message if you want how much the troops are reducing the increased unrest if you need that information displayed.
I have suggested this as I believe unrest message is too much spam, especially for controlled colonies. And hiding unrest actually could create a potential issue.
Post by: ardem on May 15, 2012, 03:08:15 AM
I like to see when you start a war those governments such as republic etc to have a war fatigue over time where unrest is pushed is increase across the empire.
Ship, Colony, and troop losses should represent wide spread unrest. I see unrest not only as riot/protest but nervousness or lack of faith in the government, which affects production.
Victories should bring increase to morale of an empire.
Destroying enemy populations should bring greater unrest to republic and democracy style governments
Running out of minerals should impact highly on corporate governance.
Distance from the captial should impact various style of government.
The various governmental system should have greater swings then others such as military style government would get great plus and minus based on casualty ratios.
----------------------------------
I think the need for a greater diplomatic simulator would be needed as well, such as suing for peace, or territorial claims to systems would help.
Some of these additions to aurora will truly increase a space/combat simulator and add the major element which is missing currently and that is a greater political aspect which most 4x games have.
Post by: 3_14159 on May 18, 2012, 08:27:20 AM
1. No more PDC assembling mineral costs.
RP: Would it really be difficult to just pack the materials in the PDC containers? And, who wouldn't do so, considering that they'd be needed in any case?
Game: It'd free me from, well, always chartering a freighter, thinking about the exact minerals needed and so on.
Difficulty: Should, I guess, not be very difficult. Probably changing a single multiplicator or something on a comparable scale.
2. Box launchers from the beginning
RP: It's (at least according from the weight) just some clamps, a tube and the missile stuffed into them. That shouldn't be too difficult, I'd say, at least compared to the other research costs.
Game: Well, that's the main question. It'd encourage things like FACs at the beginning, and probably would make fighters a bit earlier and more deadly. I can't see myself the whole scope of the changes.
Difficulty: Probably very, very easy.
Post by: xeryon on May 18, 2012, 08:48:05 AM
Post by: Havear on May 18, 2012, 11:09:24 AM
Post by: UnLimiTeD on May 20, 2012, 04:24:19 PM
Post by: ardem on May 20, 2012, 10:47:06 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_submarine_Abd%C3%BCl_Hamid
First submarines had the torps on the outside of the hull (WWI) they never had reload ability. To aim at realism, you should be able to develop a single large launcher first, but I would like to see BOX launchers like FFARS in later development. Where you can stack multiple to one launch salvo
Post by: UnLimiTeD on May 21, 2012, 06:04:28 AM
Though i suppose that was just the first submarine-fired torpedo? The development kinda makes sense as surface ships obviously had everything on deck, so why would a submersible be drastically different?^^
Post by: DatAlien on May 22, 2012, 02:28:44 PM
Post by: DatAlien on May 23, 2012, 11:26:05 AM
using the existing field for order delay and an wait action.
Post by: Andrew on May 23, 2012, 01:30:59 PM
Sorry to throw a spanner in the works unlimited.This is not correct all operational submarines had internal torpedo tubes (the first American and British ones did, as did the French I beleive)(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holland_class_submarine) These Turkish subs are not really effective or operational submarines and as the Turkish navy in this period is a bad joke cannot be used as an example of technology I am not aware of them operating any modern warship until they started to aquire some just before WW1 .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_submarine_Abd%C3%BCl_Hamid
First submarines had the torps on the outside of the hull (WWI) they never had reload ability. To aim at realism, you should be able to develop a single large launcher first, but I would like to see BOX launchers like FFARS in later development. Where you can stack multiple to one launch salvo
British submarines up until WW2 sometimes had external tubes which could not be reloaded in addition to their internal tubes for use if they had a shot at a high value target.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_T_class_submarine)
The reason for the preference for internal tubes is maintenance , internal tubes allowed the torpedo's to be carried inside the hull and checked by torpedo men so reducing the chance of malfunction while external torpedo's where exposed to a nasty corrosive environment and tended to break even more than normal
Post by: ollobrains on May 25, 2012, 05:36:21 AM
Post by: wedgebert on May 25, 2012, 09:39:55 AM
Post by: Erik L on May 25, 2012, 09:49:34 AM
Plasma torpedoes don't make a lot of sense. Why waste the energy to maintain a dense enough ball of plasma across light-seconds of distance when you can just create the plasma at the point of impact via a nuclear explosion?
Terror?
"Cap'n! There's a great honking flamin' ball of fire headed towards us!"
Post by: TheDeadlyShoe on May 25, 2012, 10:29:58 AM
Post by: wedgebert on May 25, 2012, 12:17:30 PM
Well their great advantage is always going to be the difficulty of interception and the infinite ammo, both of which makes conventional missile defence almost useless.
Meh, obviously we just need anti-plasma missiles that are packed with shaved ice designed to rapidly cool the plamsa. I hear grape is the most effective flavor.
Post by: Nathan_ on May 25, 2012, 06:08:36 PM
If I run out of Boronide at a planet, click that and everything that wants it is paused.
Post by: ollobrains on May 26, 2012, 09:00:21 PM
Pause/Resume all material use.
If I run out of Boronide at a planet, click that and everything that wants it is paused.
good idea
Post by: Garfunkel on May 27, 2012, 04:32:59 PM
Pause/Resume all material use.
If I run out of Boronide at a planet, click that and everything that wants it is paused.
Yes please.
Post by: ollobrains on May 27, 2012, 11:19:41 PM
Post by: Nathan_ on May 28, 2012, 08:56:13 AM
Post by: ardem on May 28, 2012, 10:22:57 AM
This is not correct all operational submarines had internal torpedo tubes (the first American and British ones did, as did the French I beleive)(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holland_class_submarine) These Turkish subs are not really effective or operational submarines and as the Turkish navy in this period is a bad joke cannot be used as an example of technology I am not aware of them operating any modern warship until they started to aquire some just before WW1 .
British submarines up until WW2 sometimes had external tubes which could not be reloaded in addition to their internal tubes for use if they had a shot at a high value target.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_T_class_submarine)
The reason for the preference for internal tubes is maintenance , internal tubes allowed the torpedo's to be carried inside the hull and checked by torpedo men so reducing the chance of malfunction while external torpedo's where exposed to a nasty corrosive environment and tended to break even more than normal
The Nordenfeldt's were the first 3 submarines types featuring torpedos, yes there was on 3 made made but they were first launched in 1885, the first internal tube launch was done by holland with 'plunger' That was not until 1897 when it was launched. That's is a clear 12 years later, I would call that tech advancement not a starting point. However plunger was a failure until the Holland IV was produced in 1899 and bought by the US in 1901.
I would treat this similarly to the first rocket launch tubes on a submarine, they look sufficient to be call box launchers. They are still the genus on the development life cycle, regardless of production.
http://www.prinzeugen.com/V2.htm
Post by: Erik L on May 29, 2012, 11:20:50 AM
I.E. fleet with 53% fuel has a conditional to refuel at 50%. If there is a refuel order in the queue, it shouldn't wipe it.
Post by: Erik L on May 31, 2012, 11:02:26 AM
Post by: Bgreman on May 31, 2012, 01:02:33 PM
Post by: Erik L on May 31, 2012, 01:22:37 PM
Post by: Hawkeye on May 31, 2012, 01:50:37 PM
When a new scientist joins, the event log should say what his field/bonus is instead of his promotion score.
Ahem, it does so already, no?
Only time it doesn´t is, when the scientist has a 0% bonus. Hm, come to think of it, this might actually be a bug.
Post by: Erik L on May 31, 2012, 02:02:18 PM
Ahem, it does so already, no?
Only time it doesn´t is, when the scientist has a 0% bonus. Hm, come to think of it, this might actually be a bug.
Not that I've seen. They've been showing admin ratings (number of labs) and promotion scores.
Post by: Erik L on May 31, 2012, 05:08:29 PM
Post by: Erik L on May 31, 2012, 05:17:00 PM
Post by: swarm_sadist on May 31, 2012, 07:47:42 PM
The ability to organize flights and wings of a mothership from the design window, just like setting up the default magazine settings.
Being able to set fighter wings on default manoeuvres, such as Combat Patrol or Intercept. Being able to modify these orders so you can adjust bearing and distance, weapon's settings and loadout.
Assign default fire control settings from the design window. Maybe make multiple loadouts and settings for different mission types. EX: One setting has multiple small missiles loaded for fleet PD, another has a mix for Ship Hunting.
Being able to designate whether you think a ship type is commercial or not, in the tactical intelligence screen, so you can filter enemy civilian ships out. It should cancel and interrupt if discovered otherwise (like finding out they have weapons).
Make it so larger meson launchers cause more damage. Large meson cannons are practically useless once the focusing tech becomes high enough.
Track company loyalty, lowered by taking over their mining colonies and some such. Allow companies to carry weapons on ships through the use of laws. EX: Anti-pirate law allows one combat ship of 3000 tonnes or less, for every 50000 tonnes of shipping. Ship is allowed railgun, gauss, laser and CIWS.
Post by: Hawkeye on May 31, 2012, 11:05:44 PM
Not that I've seen. They've been showing admin ratings (number of labs) and promotion scores.
New Officer:
Tiberius Livius lentullus has joined your scientific establishment. Research (Missile(/Kinetic Weapons) 15% Administrating Rating 3: Promotions Score 0
Post by: Erik L on June 01, 2012, 10:34:33 AM
New Officer:
Tiberius Livius lentullus has joined your scientific establishment. Research (Missile(/Kinetic Weapons) 15% Administrating Rating 3: Promotions Score 0
It's not in the log anymore, but I had one that just showed Promotion score 0. Nothing else.
*edit*
Looking at the available scientists, I do have 4 with a 0% bonus. It might have been one of them.
Post by: Person012345 on June 01, 2012, 11:56:11 AM
I really wish I could stage mock battles with my own vessels.I agree in principle, but it actually is perfectly do-able in game. SM a new race with virtually nothing onto the planet, transfer your ships over, stage your mock battle, transfer them back and disband the population.
I got this game roughly a week and a half to two weeks ago. So far, I love it. My worst experience was getting all the windows to come up on my monitor, but that was not so bad -- I simply told my computer I actually had two monitors (which is not true) and then moved the windows over, then shut down the false monitor. I'm actually a little afraid of the v5. 70 changes because I fear they'll make the game harder to pick up and learn. However, I should get on to my topic.
I knew there would likely not be the option to do this, but nevertheless I proceeded to attempt it anyway. I designed and built ships carrying "dummy" missiles with no warhead, and practice anti-missile missiles to shoot them down with. After time I got the ships up and armed, moved them to some waypoints, and fired the dummy missiles. Unfortunately, I found no option that allowed me to fire my weapons at either my own ships or my own parasite vessels (such as missiles). I wish such an option existed.
I've done this before. I actually had it as a permanent feature. I did a conventional multiple-race earth start and used it to test new nuclear weapon designs on (often as merely showing off by the race involved that they had trans-newtonian missile capability), as well as transferring some obsolete ships over as target drones to test new ships and weapons designs.
Post by: Erik L on June 03, 2012, 03:13:43 PM
Post by: Erik L on June 03, 2012, 06:33:19 PM
Post by: Person012345 on June 04, 2012, 03:24:40 AM
I'd love a "convert all" button for Low Tech infantry. If you have a reasonably large starting pop, converting every single low tech infantry division into cadres individually is a real pain.
Post by: swarm_sadist on June 04, 2012, 12:32:14 PM
Quote from: Person012345 link=topic=2828. msg50450#msg50450 date=1338798280
Oops, think i posted this in the wrong thread, so. . .
Or the ability to select lines of text in one go, like a shift select or drag. Not really sure if that's doable in the engine.
It would also be good to have the "Assign to HQ" not have full brigades/division HQ in the list, or make a selection to view only HQ on the planet (or in the sector/force).
Post by: Erik L on June 04, 2012, 12:40:59 PM
Or the ability to select lines of text in one go, like a shift select or drag. Not really sure if that's doable in the engine.
It would also be good to have the "Assign to HQ" not have full brigades/division HQ in the list, or make a selection to view only HQ on the planet (or in the sector/force).
Be nice if they were ordered also :)
Post by: Erik L on June 04, 2012, 12:49:34 PM
Post by: CheaterEater on June 04, 2012, 03:13:10 PM
Quote from: Erik Luken link=topic=2828. msg50459#msg50459 date=1338832174
An option for the galaxy map to remove asteroids from the percent surveyed value.
How about making the existing one %everything/%asteroids or some variation thereof.
Post by: TheDeadlyShoe on June 04, 2012, 08:17:42 PM
Post by: swarm_sadist on June 16, 2012, 11:31:10 PM
-Sector
-Task Force
-Pull up list of task groups in selected task force
-selected task group location
2) The ability to change the importance of certain task groups within a task force. EX: 1st Carrier Fleet has four task groups, core group, escort 1(short range), escort 2(long range), picket group. In order of importance, core has a value of 1, escorts have a value of 2-3, and the picket has a value of 4.
3) Tied in with 2. Order Protect Threat Axis and PD will be tied with task force value. EX: An escort will use it's long range missiles to protect task groups valued 1-3 (the center of the fleet), if enemy missiles are in short PD range, the escorts will use their guns to protect groups valued at 1-2 (the carriers and gun PD's only). In both cases the pickets are considered expendable.
4) Treat fighter squadrons as task forces (within the task force), and when releasing fighters, organize them into flights. Each flight can be customized to carry certain weapon and have a certain number of fighters, and can each be ordered separately (like protecting and engaging different targets, or patrolling different areas). Flights can be customized by mission type (Combat Space Patrol vs Escort), or done at launch for odd/rare flight configurations (make a 1 fighter flight for a jump fighter/equip a bomber flight with cluster munitions instead).
Ability to set commander class priority to -1, indicating I never want an officer to take control of this ship. Would be very useful for a game where the fighters are piloted by 'slaves' not officers.
I like. Also a maximum rank allowed, so my colony ships don't have rear admirals in them.
Post by: MehMuffin on June 17, 2012, 08:04:49 PM
I like. Also a maximum rank allowed, so my colony ships don't have rear admirals in them.Yesyesyesuesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesyes. Please.
Post by: crys on June 19, 2012, 09:08:06 AM
on the odd part here, 10k additional tons of shipyard cost something like 144/1440 minerals (commercial/naval), but 10k tons of maintenance facilities are 7500 minerals.
if there ever should be a question about maintainence for commercial ships this could be a solotion too.
Post by: Havear on June 23, 2012, 12:43:55 AM
I put forward the possibility of a generic "happiness" system, where each colony has a "happiness" associated with it. Things like government type, occupation, environmental effects, etc. cause negative happiness, while other things such as, say, lower tax rates (will talk about later), certain new technologies, amount of trade and the like cause positive happiness. An advantage to this is greater flexibility and depth, such as conquering an enemy planet and bombarding them with luxuries, which makes them think that perhaps their new government is better then the old and integrate into your empire faster, or even a planet that's wealthy enough, with enough trade, that most people don't care that they've run out of available infrastructure and the lower-classes are dying in droves. A lot of the things that right now directly cause unrest would instead cause unhappiness, which in turn, if negative, causes unrest proportional to how unhappy people are. In the same situation nothing should change, but it provides a better alternative to "shoot everything that argues".
Another part is a greater depth to the tax system. Total wealth generation becomes much higher, but you've got to balance "civilian" funds and the "military" funds (in this example, military funding is what we're using right now in Aurora). There's a slider somewhere, probably in the race details screen, that determines what percentage goes to each. More civilian funds would make the populace happier, while more military funding would obviously help a lot in a pinch. Individual colonies could also have their own sliders that default to whatever the empire-wide tax rate is, with, say, a check box specifying that you want to manually set it for that individual colony.
Together, and assuming happiness has some positives (such as higher population growth, perhaps more civilian trade goods produced, etc.), I could see things like lower tax rates in peacetime to expand swifter, and then drastically higher rates in war which make the population angrier the longer they stay high. Or, much more fun, conquering a planet and taxing the population to the maximum as reparations while keeping them in check with ground troops.
EDIT: Another suggestion: A new tech line called something like "Hyperdrive Stability Factor" or whatever, but it decreases the effective radius of the hyper limit for the hyperdrive.
Post by: segundoblz on June 26, 2012, 01:23:21 PM
Post by: HaliRyan on June 26, 2012, 05:22:34 PM
Support for more displays like 1366 x 768 and more.
This would be nice, but is unlikely to happen as the game's coded in VB6 which apparently is the devil for giving multiple resolution options.
Post by: nikow on June 26, 2012, 06:58:44 PM
Quote from: segundoblz link=topic=2828. msg51182#msg51182 date=1340735001
Support for more displays like 1366 x 768 and more.It isn't possible without rewriting windows in game. :'(
Post by: segundoblz on June 26, 2012, 10:13:55 PM
It isn't possible without rewriting windows in game. :'(Crap :\
Post by: Ektoras on July 01, 2012, 08:52:55 AM
At the Mining/Maintenance tab add a sum for annual production.
I am bored adding the number with calculator to find how many mass drivers i need :-[
Post by: crys on July 09, 2012, 01:56:58 PM
when you add a laser to youre ship, you get the damage values for range
something like 8 8 6 6 4 4 2 2 1 1 0 0 0
10 numbers stating youre damage at different distances.
cant this damage calculating feature be used in beam design?
that you know better what kind of laser you are going to research?
i only used lasers and missiles yet, so i dont know if this would be usefull for ciws/gauss/microwave/meson/railgun/plasma too
Post by: Havear on July 16, 2012, 01:24:39 PM
Post by: Haji on July 18, 2012, 10:31:00 AM
I'd like some changes to the tech diffusion that occures when several empires share the same planet. Aside from what I assume are bugs (like researching Assoult Battallion gives everyone technology of Replacment Battalion - except for the one who researched the technology, or the Duranium Armour tech being given to everyone immiedietly after researching just next level) there is also problem of secrecy. I mean, while civilian technologies (industry etc. in terms of the game) are certainly quite easy to be copied, others technologies could easily be very secret - like technology of building better, military jump drives, or stronger missile warheads. I mean, USA had nuclear warheads for sixty years by now, going through several generations of them, and they are still extremly difficult to manufacture for newcomers - like North Korea can probably testify. Then there is also the little problem of tech diffusion being effectivly doubling what espionage is often doing.
What I'd like to see is one of two things. First, give the option of turning this off at the start of the game. If SM is believing tech diffusion is something that should be taking place in his campaign (as the current tech diffusion just doesn't take into consideration things like secrecy or how tightly borders are controlled and whether or not information and people can move freely or are thightly regulated), he can either turn it on, or simulate it via SM options. Or, make the diffusion random. Currently if someone researches tech more that two generations in advance, those others are awarded with the lower tech. Make it something like (just an example): after researching new tech the game comperes newly researched technology to that of the other nation. If the new tech is generationor two in advance, nothing happens. If it's three generations in advance, there is five percent chance the other nation will get this technology but two generations lower (for example, if nation A discovered industrial output 20 per factory and the Nation B have tech 12 per factory, there is five percent chance that the nation B will get tech 14 per factory). As the tech imbalance becomes greater, the greater the chance of the lower-teched nation getting new tech, with the maximum chance being 90% or 95%, so that there is always chance of technology not diffusing.
Post by: Person012345 on July 18, 2012, 11:26:38 AM
A few friends and I were discussing the possibility of rudimentary ground-unit design. I'm not sure exactly how it would work, but I was thinking potentially you might design a ground unit in the same way you design a ship component and the like. It would add some flavour to ground combat rather than having generic "infantry battalions" and "assault infantry battalions".
Post by: Zook on August 03, 2012, 11:53:46 AM
It took me a while to figure out why I couldn't assign any planets to sectors. A note on the sector screen like "Sector Command Tech required" would be helpful.
Post by: Erik L on August 03, 2012, 02:37:09 PM
Total newbie here:
It took me a while to figure out why I couldn't assign any planets to sectors. A note on the sector screen like "Sector Command Tech required" would be helpful.
It's actually "Improved Command & Control" :)
Post by: crys on August 03, 2012, 06:49:38 PM
should be more like a short term solution vs trade centers. - maybe use different resources?
about trade
can you ship tradegoods too? or only the civilian companies?
Post by: TheDeadlyShoe on August 04, 2012, 04:00:19 PM
Only civilian freighters can ship trade goods.
Post by: crys on August 05, 2012, 12:10:27 AM
additionaly it propably takes some time for thouse financial centers to turn a profit.
so financial centers are no good for production worlds, im looking for something you can put on when you are low on wealth.
Post by: Erik L on August 05, 2012, 07:55:49 AM
This is something I put in Astra Imperia, and sort of adapted from SFB. Sensors, or in the case of Aurora, missile fire controls have channels. The number of channels being the number of missiles that the ship could control. Obviously, this would be an upgradeable tech line. Question is, apply it to beam fire control? In AI, channels are used to control outbound missiles, incoming missiles, and target ships. Once you are out of channels, you cannot target a new ship/missile salvo, or guide your own missiles. Of course, when a channel is freed up by missiles getting destroyed, or a ship being destroyed or otherwise removed from the target pool, you can then assign the channel to something else.
I'm not proposing anything that complicated, just something to limit the number of missiles in flight. AMM MFC would probably end up designed with higher channels to account for the greater number of missiles fired, while offensive MFC would have less channels. This leads to the idea of a controller ship, with lots of MFC channels to control a large number of missiles.
Post by: crys on August 05, 2012, 02:02:27 PM
frist the next patch could change alot about missiles, the way engines work is going to be changed. so its not the best point to speak about additional missile changes.
not saying thouse are good ways to nerf them, but options how it could work or not.
1. missiles could get a log-on timer for their targets, depending how long it is, it propably wouldnt hurt them at all - even pd missiles have kind of high range so if it would take 10 secs to log-on they would be still lunched in time.
2. missile fuel consumption could be increased, resulting in larger fuel tanks in missiles reducing overall statts of missiles.
3. pd missiles have a very high tohit chance compared to other weapons (over 10k firerange tohit), but are propably much slower then thouse - lasers beam have the speed of light, messon/railgun/gauss are all insta hit weapons too. in addition i think missiles have more then one chance to intercept if they are faster then the targeted missile?
4. the range of missile fire controls could be reduced, dont think it would change alot, ppl would just use larger firecontrols, so it gets just a bit more expencive.
5. pd missiles could be nerfed with reducing the range of "missile" sensors - later detection means fewer chances to fire pd missiles, but would not effect different pd weapons, thouse dont have a range over millions of kms.
6. magazines and/or missile lunchers could be specialized to a typ of missile, this would mean you can no longer change youre old missiles to new ones, and reduce the use of older missile ships alot, and force the player to upgrade them.
edit7. the production time, not costs for missiles could be increased.
idk if thouse ways to nerf missiles are to strong or not good, you pick =) i havent used enough missiles to pick.
Post by: swarm_sadist on August 06, 2012, 04:20:25 PM
i havent used enough missiles to know alot about them, but i can make a few suggestions how they could be nerfed.You don't have to nerf smaller missiles, you just have to give people a reason to use larger missiles.
frist the next patch could change alot about missiles, the way engines work is going to be changed. so its not the best point to speak about additional missile changes.
not saying thouse are good ways to nerf them, but options how it could work or not.
Quote
1. Missiles could get a lock-on timer for their targets, depending how long it is, it probably wouldn't hurt them at all. Even PD missiles have kind of a high range so if it would take 10 secs to lock-on, they would still be lunched in time.A lock on timer would be good, especially since there is a tech very similar to this. The +20% target tracking against missiles could be used against all targets, or, used against targets the resolution can track. A resolution one fire control would be able to track missiles, a level two would be able to track small fighters and so on. I'm not sure if it should be generic (IE TL3= 10 secs, TL4= 5 secs).
Quote
2. Missile fuel consumption could be increased, resulting in larger fuel tanks in missiles reducing overall stats of missiles.Steve has said he is staying away from generic definitions, instead opting for a more universal approach. I believe the fuel cost for missiles is logarithmic, meaning exponential flipped sideways, so larger engines will have better fuel economy than larger ones.
Quote
3. PD missiles have a very high to-hit chance compared to other weapons (over 10k fire range to-hit), but are probably much slower then those - lasers beam have the speed of light, meson/railgun/gauss are all instant hit weapons too. In addition I think missiles have more than one chance to intercept if they are faster than the targeted missile?So you want to nerf AMMs by making them have a better chance to hit?
Quote
4. The range of missile fire controls could be reduced. I do not think it would change a lot as people would just use larger FCs, so it gets just a bit more expensive.Most of the time FC is about 4x longer distance than the missile it's controlling. This is used by some players to avoid requiring ECCM. I do not think this will be looked at until Steve starts messing with Electronic Warfare.
Quote
5. PD missiles could be nerfed with reducing the range of "missile" sensors - later detection means fewer chances to fire PD missiles, but would not effect different PD weapons, those don't have a range of several million kilometres.Currently there is only one "missile sensor" size, resolution 1. If there could be multiple sizes between 0-10 (0-500 tonnes), then maybe the sensors could be better balanced. The main problem with PD sensors and fire controls is that a 50 tonne sensor can effectively be a universal sensor on most ships, allowing you to put one on every ship with ease.
Quote
6. Magazines and/or missile launchers could be specialized to a type of missile. This would mean you would no longer be able to change your old missiles to new ones, reduce the use of older missile ships a lot, and force the player to upgrade the launchers.IRL, missile launchers and torpedo launchers of certain countries are different calibres. Usually, but not always, the weapon is designed with a certain calibre in mind so the old launcher can be used multiple times without having to research, design and retrofit every missile launcher in existence. While you should not be able to completely copy an enemy design and put them in your missile tubes, I believe all of your missile designs would be compatible with your own launchers. A size 3 missile should fit all of your launchers >3, with sabots.
Quote
7. The production time of missiles, not the costs, should be increased.Miniaturization should be calculated in Aurora. A smaller missile would be harder to create than larger one. A larger missile would be more expensive and take longer to build, but should require less complex manufacturing and assembly processes. A larger missile could be manufactured in components and assembled, requiring less time per tonne to complete. Unlike your suggestion, the cost in wealth should also be reduced. A larger and therefor simpler missile would require fewer people per tonne to assemble, with overall less specialized training required, hence lower wage costs.
Quote from: Erik Luken
This is something I put in Astra Imperia, and sort of adapted from SFB. Sensors, or in the case of Aurora, missile fire controls have channels. The number of channels being the number of missiles that the ship could control. Obviously, this would be an upgradeable tech line. Question is, apply it to beam fire control? In AI, channels are used to control outbound missiles, incoming missiles, and target ships. Once you are out of channels, you cannot target a new ship/missile salvo, or guide your own missiles. Of course, when a channel is freed up by missiles getting destroyed, or a ship being destroyed or otherwise removed from the target pool, you can then assign the channel to something else.I like this idea. It's very much like Dangerous Waters and their sensor GRAMs and CHANs. A larger missile with the same fire control as a smaller missile will require the same amount of GRAMs in order to operate. A more "Complex" missile fire control would require a larger amount of limited GRAMs, while a larger missile could have require fewer GRAMs (It would have more internal space for it's own sensors, freeing up shipboard controls for more missiles). CHAN or channels would be the maximum number of missiles control by the ship, no matter how small that control may be.
I'm not proposing anything that complicated, just something to limit the number of missiles in flight. AMM MFC would probably end up designed with higher channels to account for the greater number of missiles fired, while offensive MFC would have less channels. This leads to the idea of a controller ship, with lots of MFC channels to control a large number of missiles.
Another future option could have EW being able to reduce the range of channels that you may operate at once, resulting in you being able to fire fewer ship guided missiles at the enemy. EX: If the enemy is jamming or flooding the 50 MHz to 120 MHz ranges, then signals cannot be transmitted in that range, unless your fire control has a VERY large antennae.
Dangerous Waters Tutorial - Bouys
feature=BFa&list=UL6Ga7e-XNeDQ
I'd recommend getting the game. It's very realistic but a little dated.
Adding to the conversation above:
8. A larger missile would be able to cover a larger area with armour, and could house shielding or larger warheads, for a slightly higher cost than a smaller missile.
Post by: Erik L on August 06, 2012, 07:13:55 PM
Another future option could have EW being able to reduce the range of channels that you may operate at once, resulting in you being able to fire fewer ship guided missiles at the enemy. EX: If the enemy is jamming or flooding the 50 MHz to 120 MHz ranges, then signals cannot be transmitted in that range, unless your fire control has a VERY large antennae.
I may have to steal... err... adapt that idea for AI. Right now ECM just provides a negative to lock on.
*edit* Hmm... already did that. :)
Post by: swarm_sadist on August 06, 2012, 09:07:24 PM
I may have to steal... err... adapt that idea for AI. Right now ECM just provides a negative to lock on.
*edit* Hmm... already did that. :)
And now I must trademark the EM spectrum and all she holds.
Post by: Erik L on August 06, 2012, 10:25:06 PM
And now I must trademark the EM spectrum and all she holds.
This is what I did in Astra Imperia...
Code: [Select]
ECM may be used to jam sensors. ECM used in this manner provides no protection. Jammed sensors suffer a negative modifier equal to the “To-Hit reduction” on their chances to lock on and to hit. This is shown on Table 50 on page 39. Jammed sensors also have half of the channel capacity. The ship wishing to jam a sensor must roll a to-hit as a Class II weapon. If the roll succeeds, the target’s sensors are jammed for 1d5 turns. Multiple “hits” from jamming are not cumulative.
Post by: swarm_sadist on August 06, 2012, 10:53:21 PM
This is what I did in Astra Imperia...Code: [Select]ECM may be used to jam sensors. ECM used in this manner provides no protection. Jammed sensors suffer a negative modifier equal to the “To-Hit reduction” on their chances to lock on and to hit. This is shown on Table 50 on page 39. Jammed sensors also have half of the channel capacity. The ship wishing to jam a sensor must roll a to-hit as a Class II weapon. If the roll succeeds, the target’s sensors are jammed for 1d5 turns. Multiple “hits” from jamming are not cumulative.
Interesting. I've never played AI but it looks interesting. How is it that the ECM provides no protection if it damages the enemy's ability to hit you? Isn't that how ECM works?
What I was suggesting was a wavelength/frequency based sensor (based on resolution) coupled with fire control (which would operate on another frequency far away from sensors) which may be crowded by a very large enemy array. If the enemy floods a frequency, then that frequency cannot be used by either side (unless there exists jamming modulators tied in to the shipboard sensors, although if it exists it's still classified). A FC would be able to switch frequency, but there is a limited amount of wavelengths that can be used. It could also tie in to communications, with some races using different wavelengths for messages.
Post by: Zook on August 09, 2012, 11:22:39 AM
1) I'm currently the victim of a massive slowdown where distant NPR wars I'm not involved in cause the game to compute the next month almost in real time. I don't mind waiting a little, there's always something else to do while Aurora is busy, it's just that a 30-day auto turn could take a minute to compute, or two hours. When I'm expecting it to take a long time, I read or cook dinner or make myself useful in other ways than commanding my star empire. I stop checking once a minute if the turn is finished. But then, maybe the next time I hit "30 days" the distant battle or war is over, the turn is done in 20 seconds and the game waits for my next input while I read the sports pages, just to pass the time. That effectively doubles the time it takes to get through a slowdown phase.
What about an option "Play a sound if the last turn took longer than 3 minutes to compute"? Just a notification that you're expected in the command center again.
Also, the event log might include a message saying that "A distant battle has caused some game slowdown". So new players know it's not a bug.
2) If the slowdown is due to such a war, what about an SM option to "End distant NPR wars"? It would simply restore all NPR relations to a state of harmonious co-existence and make the game playable again. Of course that would be a massive intervention in the history of the galaxy, but so is removing entire star systems.
Post by: Charlie Beeler on August 09, 2012, 12:55:38 PM
I was contemplating the overwhelming dominance of missiles in Aurora, and I had a thought. (I know, dangerous)
This is something I put in Astra Imperia, and sort of adapted from SFB. Sensors, or in the case of Aurora, missile fire controls have channels. The number of channels being the number of missiles that the ship could control. Obviously, this would be an upgradeable tech line. Question is, apply it to beam fire control? In AI, channels are used to control outbound missiles, incoming missiles, and target ships. Once you are out of channels, you cannot target a new ship/missile salvo, or guide your own missiles. Of course, when a channel is freed up by missiles getting destroyed, or a ship being destroyed or otherwise removed from the target pool, you can then assign the channel to something else.
I'm not proposing anything that complicated, just something to limit the number of missiles in flight. AMM MFC would probably end up designed with higher channels to account for the greater number of missiles fired, while offensive MFC would have less channels. This leads to the idea of a controller ship, with lots of MFC channels to control a large number of missiles.
Sounds familiar...http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,1563.msg14232/topicseen.html#msg14232 (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,1563.msg14232/topicseen.html#msg14232)
:D
Post by: Erik L on August 09, 2012, 01:17:31 PM
Sounds familiar...http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,1563.msg14232/topicseen.html#msg14232 (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,1563.msg14232/topicseen.html#msg14232)
:D
Good ideas never die? ;)
Post by: UnLimiTeD on August 09, 2012, 07:21:14 PM
Given that massive strikes aren't possible anymore unless you stack on firecontrols, the original reason for banning it goes away.
Post by: davidr on August 13, 2012, 06:10:08 AM
At present a vessel can be built at the beginning of the game , say in 2025 and with refitting and maintenance can exist almost indefinitely ( war losses excluded ).
I know that one could role play and scrap vessels after a certain amount of time but this would be better is it was forced onto the player by the core programme.
DavidR
Post by: metalax on August 13, 2012, 11:44:57 AM
Post by: Zook on August 13, 2012, 03:39:15 PM
Post by: Zook on August 13, 2012, 05:40:41 PM
Post by: Erik L on August 13, 2012, 06:24:04 PM
An economic problem: I mine much less than I try to turn into ships. I get a lot of messages about missing minerals for production, and I can see my non-existent stockpiles and the amount I need to produce all I've ordered. But I'd like to know how much I'm lacking on a per-month basis. Also, how much my mass drivers and ships brought in last month. With the information I have, it's hard to say whether need 50% more Duranium or 250%. I can manually add the amount mined in the system, but don't they have computers for that in the 21st century?
Don't forget your maintenance consumes minerals as does your facility production.
On the mining tab there should be a column for mass driver incoming minerals. As well as the +/- column which shows usage trends.
Post by: Zook on August 13, 2012, 07:25:46 PM
On the mining tab there should be a column for mass driver incoming minerals.
Unfortunately it doesn't work. Zero since the dawn of the space age.
Post by: Beersatron on August 13, 2012, 11:19:54 PM
Unfortunately it doesn't work. Zero since the dawn of the space age.
You have to look at it on the 'tick' that the minerals arrive - which is like a mini-game within the game :)
Post by: Zook on August 15, 2012, 12:17:11 AM
Post by: jseah on August 15, 2012, 07:47:09 PM
Have ship components be buildable in packages. While having the ability to stock engines before-hand is nice, it would be micromanagement friendly to have orders for "Build Kuma Class Frigate Manufacturable Components" as an item that, upon completion, would dump the relevant items into your stockpiles.
This would help greatly.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for a new suggestion:
The Stable option on the civilian immigration is very useful. It could be expanded into a Stable Level tool.
The Stable Level should have the option of being one of two things (check box?):
An absolute number in millions
Or the difference to maximum infrastructure support in millions (so -1 means 1 million less than infrastructure will support)
What this should do is to behave as Source when above the stable level, and Destination when below it.
Additionally, civilian colony ships should check for all incoming colonists and not route in/out if that would go over/under the Stable level.
Post by: jseah on August 18, 2012, 10:03:50 AM
Allow preferred ranges for missile firecontrols. When AMM launching against a target outside the low and high preferred range, ships will look for another firecontrol with a preferred range that fits the target and fire that first.
They should still fire if the preferred firecontrols are not ready (whether due to reloading tubes or can't fire enough), just that they will shoot those tubes first.
This will allow layered AMM nets for multiple interceptions. A 6mkm AMM, then a 3mkm AMM, then a 1mkm AMM, with increasing capabilities at shorter ranges.
Perhaps have a ignore-number to facilitate cooperation with PD. The firecontrol will not fire at targets that will hit in 5 seconds unless they are above a certain ignore-number.
EDIT: currently, the impact of this is roughly 1% interception chance, but this is set to increase dramatically once the 5.7 missile fuel comes in.
Intelligence on enemy missiles should allow you to designate ignored classes of missiles (stuff your ships will not automatically fire at). Missiles with 0 warhead should be automatically ignored.
Post by: schroeam on August 19, 2012, 03:45:20 PM
Quote
Undermanning
Morale can also be affected by undermanning. If a ship's crew falls below half its normal complement, morale will be affected. The formula is Morale = Current Morale x ((Current Crew * 2) / Normal Crew)
So a problem I run into is that I don't always have enough crew to man my new construction. How about some code that accounts for normal crew rotation, say 5% per month. If there is crew available no change, but if there is not crew available then the fleet begins having crew shortages.
Adam.
Post by: Grigio87 on August 22, 2012, 08:12:38 AM
1 - New branch of technology that improves the efficency of engeeniring module (Maint Life up and failure rate down), or new module, for example:
- Engineering Spaces
- Improved Engineering Spaces
- Advanced Engineering Spaces
... and so on
4 - New Action: Scrap PDC
6 - Robot Ground Forces (bonus: don't loss morale in any situation, malus: can't be trained and can't improve morale over 100)
7 - Ground Unit Training facility queue.
---
What do you think about this?
Regards and sorry for my English (i was in outer space for a long time and forget terrestrial language).
Grigio
Post by: Person012345 on August 22, 2012, 08:56:41 AM
Post by: Grigio87 on August 22, 2012, 09:02:11 AM
You can build "orbital PDC's" already - a ship with no engines. The reason a PDC gets the bonuses it does is precisely because it's ground based, the extra armour simulating being underground or using more conventional materials or whatever, being built by factories and not having to worry about putting the weight into orbit etc. and the inability to use lasers and such are a drawback. As engines usually account for a large portion of a ship's design, a ship without any still has significant advantages in firepower and armour over powered ships.
Oh... true ;D
Post by: crys on August 22, 2012, 11:50:37 AM
i would like to suggest some research to counter act this.
either
1. a research field which makes everything cheaper, maybe 95%|90%|85%|80% price instead of 100%
2. or you could improve old tech with research. - lets say you researched magnetic confinement fusion drive. this allows you now to design previous(obsolete) engines cheaper, this could work with weapons, jumpdrives, firecontrols too.
Post by: swarm_sadist on August 23, 2012, 07:27:03 PM
in this game every new item gets more expensive.(i think its a lot more expensive)
i would like to suggest some research to counter act this.
either
1. a research field which makes everything cheaper, maybe 95%|90%|85%|80% price instead of 100%
2. or you could improve old tech with research. - lets say you researched magnetic confinement fusion drive. this allows you now to design previous(obsolete) engines cheaper, this could work with weapons, jumpdrives, firecontrols too.
1. I disagree. Economics is not a simple tech tree that you can climb up. I shall use China vs. America as an example. China is able to produce components cheaply compared to America is more to do with the GDP/c than with their "superior" technology. An engineer in China is able to design a component for a very large fee (although smaller than most American counterparts get). The design is then passed on to the factory line, where a few technicians monitor a large group of day workers who both work for lower wages than anyone in America is willing to work for.
If the average GDP/c in China were to be higher, the workers would demand a pay raise. A high growth rate causes inflation that would increase the basic costs of living; a high GDP/c would increase the wages of the people. It does not matte which one raises first as either one would raise the other (usually). The best manufacturing economy is a state with low inflation and low GDP/c.
America, on the other hand, has a highly educated (by comparison) workforce and has a leading edge in manufacturing and robotic technology. They require fewer workers to produce something, meaning fewer wages to pay and more technical minded employees for more complex job tasks. America would benefit from more technology (such as robotics), but China would not (child labour is very cost effective). While China could outproduce technology that is simple to mass produce, things like cruise missiles and nuclear reactors could not be produced as effectively as they can in the US, Canada or Australia.
2. I am both for and against this idea. The main reason why IRL older technology is considered cheaper is because the concept, design and model is well understood, there are plenty of spare parts available, there are many people who have worked on and maintained said part in it's production lifetime, and there is more than likely a factory somewhere in China spitting out spare parts for you to use. Try finding someone who can repair your Vinyl player and see what I mean.
If you really wanted to try this in game, I would suggest having industries tooled for certain components, like shipyards are for ship classes. If you want to build a component the old way, you can do that too, but you would not get the cost reduction, build reduction and maybe even a repair or maintenance bonus for said component. It should not require that much industry, maybe set aside 20-30 IC for commercial ship engines to give your shipping lines a cost reduction for their ship's engines. IRL, the amount of cost and time reduced is called the experience curve, which is different for every type of component. The lower the percentage, the more information and experience is maintained from one cycle to the next. Note that the absolute limit for the cost reduction and the absolute limit for the time to build are usually different from each other.
NASA QUOTES FOR EXPERIENCE CURVES:
Aerospace: 85% experience curve (15% reduction in cost and time to build per doubling cycle)
Shipbuilding: 80-85% (Assuming a new hull is started right after the first one is finished)
Complex Machine Tools for new product: 75-85% (rough start means greater optimization further down the road)
Raw Materials Extraction: 96% (Mining; would also result in fewer accidents and improved output)
Refining: 93% (7% reduction in cost, time is mostly constant due to time required for refining)
Electronics(old): 90-95% (Robotic operations have mostly been optimized to the limit)
Repetitive Electrical Operations: 75-85% (reduction mostly from labour experience, so cost remains constant while time to complete changes; wages required would decrease)
EDIT: Design bugs, oversights and development skips can also be factored in. A quickly designed engine made during wartime may have a higher fuel usage, risk of explosion or cost associated with it, which can be "retrofitted" to produce a more reliable design. Some WW2 examples include the torpedoes of every nation had never been tested in a realistic manor because of cost. The American's went to war with a torpedo that was tested twice, one of which failed to detonate (IE a success rate that turned out to be 33% in the war).
Post by: crys on August 24, 2012, 02:20:38 AM
maybe i should have made it more clear, but still its is interresting.
i thought more about mineral costs for thouse components.
engines for example have theire costs related to the thrust they produce. Even the engine modificators +pow -eff fit in here.
i think its a bit odd that everything is allways getting more expencive in this game.
with higher tech you propably would have the option to build "old" components with less minerals, or you could replace some with non-newtonian minerals.
this could be another tab in component research - like fuel use, but you can only use it for "old" things, and more for even older things.
Post by: UnLimiTeD on August 24, 2012, 06:40:09 AM
I always wondered if, once you have a single weapon with long enough range to compete, building more, cheaper ships with outdated tech is cheaper on your stockpiles.
Post by: Zook on August 24, 2012, 09:45:26 AM
Post by: UnLimiTeD on August 24, 2012, 11:36:37 AM
Overall, just investing in armor/shields and one or two weapon systems, with the rest pumped into economy, ought to be a superior strategy when it comes to fleet strength.
After all, the only existence reason for those ships is the guard the exploration you need to build them.
Cutting one should cut the other, I'm pretty certain you can survive a few millenia with just a half dozen fortified systems.
It's no fun, but I'm sure it's possible.
Post by: TheDeadlyShoe on August 25, 2012, 05:18:59 AM
I think an Aurora budget military would be one that severely skimps on engines and uses large salvos of very long range missiles (namely, can't get away/determine range but can't get in a situation where you can't retaliate.). You'd probably want some high speed scouts so you don't have to spend RP developing huge sensors.
Post by: UnLimiTeD on August 26, 2012, 08:09:34 AM
If you outnumber the enemy 10 to 1, you can just send a steady supply of ships to his homeworld. :D
Damn I gotta try that.
Post by: Zook on August 26, 2012, 08:56:56 AM
Also, is there a one-click way to get from the galaxy map to a star system? Right now, a double click opens the boring-stuff-and-details window.
Post by: Grigio87 on August 26, 2012, 12:40:20 PM
Hi Steve, i love your game, and have some ideas for your consideration:
1 - New branch of technology that improves the efficency of engeeniring module (Maint Life up and failure rate down), or new module, for example:
- Engineering Spaces
- Improved Engineering Spaces
- Advanced Engineering Spaces
... and so on2 - X3 - X
4 - New Action: Scrap PDC5 - X
6 - Robot Ground Forces (bonus: don't loss morale in any situation, malus: can't be trained and can't improve morale over 100)
7 - Ground Unit Training facility queue.
---
What do you think about this?
Regards and sorry for my English (i was in outer space for a long time and forget terrestrial language).
Grigio
New ideas:
8 - EMP Missile (ElectroMagnetic Pulse), missile that give damage such as Microwave
Post by: Nathan_ on August 26, 2012, 09:15:38 PM
They don't put on rust in orbit, do they?
Micrometeorites, solar wind, radiation damage to electronics, stray hydrogen atoms, and so on.
Grigio, if you want maintenence free ships build large hangarbay PDCs. full sized ships can be placed into mothball for when you need them.
Post by: Grigio87 on August 27, 2012, 09:34:31 AM
Grigio, if you want maintenence free ships build large hangarbay PDCs. full sized ships can be placed into mothball for when you need them.
I try ;)
Are you sure that ship in PDC's hangar don't consume mineral for maintenance?
Another trick is scrap ship and stop the related scrap task in "Shipyard Tasks" tab.
Post by: swarm_sadist on August 27, 2012, 07:34:30 PM
Tier 0 coulld be invisible to sensors, either because the emissions are so small they aren't looked at or there is no emission reaching the sensors.
Tier 1 could be a sensor blip, 'unknown:IR:600W/sr', which would yield no useful information besides a general (read ambiguous) bearing, distance, type and intensity. The 'marker' would then be placed within in the general area (IE: within 1 million kilometres) of the actual object and not updated at regular intervals, making it effectively a contact lost marker. Occasionally, there could appear 'ghosts' (false positive) and 'shadows' (false negative), which would add a bit of mystery to my current campaign (Earth and 100 Tracking Stations). Maybe even make it so a poorly trained or disciplined ship does not always check their scanners in a sub-pulse.
Tier 2 you'd be able to see the outline of the ship, tell what race built it and what make it is (if known). You'd be able to determine the exact energy emissions, in W/m2, which could allow you to guess future Tier 1 contacts with said ship. You could determine engine power, shield strength and pretty much everything else currently detected in Aurora.
Tier 3 would provide everything possible about the target, depending on the sensor. A thermal sensor would be able to check for weapons on the outer hull, if their powered and (when their powered) how powerful they are. An EM sensor could detect things like capacitors that are charged (and from that fire rate), sensor systems, antennae, communications (orders) and maybe even search for internal computers. This would have to be for military scanners only and for extremely close ranges, to balance the game. Maybe 0-500,000km for large sensor ships early in the game.
Post by: Hazard on September 02, 2012, 10:55:34 AM
Likewise, the ability to set a specific colony of yours in a system as the 'fuel depot' of the system would be nice, especially when the harvestable gas giants are a long distance from any jump points, while whatever you set down as the 'depot' would hopefully be closer.
For terraforming: It would be nice to create a hydrosphere and following on that a biosphere for a planet, with the lack of those things imposing a habitability penalty. That way, they don't end up being just another uninteresting line in the planetary report, rather than something actually important.
Post by: Zook on September 06, 2012, 05:44:09 PM
Post by: crys on September 06, 2012, 07:02:35 PM
but once in a while i must think about things that are a little bit anoying in this game.
one of my main problems is, that the game gets very slow 20-30 years in the game, even without AI-empires.
i wanted to start a game with 3 AI-empires recently, but the first 30 day cycle took 3-5 mins so i didnt even start playing.
often even getting allready calculated statts, like the economy windows are slow. 20-30 years into the game, it will take several(5+) secounds to load any of the economy pages of larger worlds(homeworld), including alot of actions on the same economy window side. like turning troops to cardres, or even disbanding them, or building ships.
ok you propably think first uh - he must have an old pc, and in some way youre right, i have an E6600 core2duo, with 2gb ram, running win xp. but this still means there is allways one idle core for this game.
please if you have time, have a look into things which are calculated over and over, without time advancing =).
maybe my DB is messed up ok, ill see with the next version of this game =)
Post by: telegraph on September 08, 2012, 03:57:49 AM
It is currently quite a chore to use scroll bars everywhere.
2. It would also be helpful if we could tune which messages generate interrupts more precisely, pure regexp approach would be fine.
For example:
In some cases I would care to be interrupted only by Exceptional officer, in other - only by exceptional officer with certain skill or certain set of skills, sometimes any officer at all will draw my attention. . . It would be nice if it was configurable.
3. It would be nice to have a "hardcore" mode with all cheats and SM-mode disabled. It should work as a one-way transition, so that a universe might be set-up in SM mode, then game would be "hardcored" and player forced to play by rules.
This suggestion is different from the SM-mode switch because it should affect non-SM cheats, like "assign to any location".
Post by: Hawkeye on September 08, 2012, 04:58:37 AM
telegraph: "hey, programm, I am turning the mousewheel, why aren´t your lists scrolling down, damnit!?"
Visual Basic 6: "Mousewheel? What the heck are you talking about, never heard of such a thing!"
3.
Well, just don´t go SM and leave the "assign to any location" box un-checked. This _is_ (mostely) a single-player thing. Yes, some self-control is required, but I am sure you can do it! :)
Post by: telegraph on September 08, 2012, 06:37:53 PM
3. Self-control would not stop AutoAssignments from sending a captain to the ship half universe away by the means of thin ether. This feature-request is not only about disabling one checkbox, but enforcing fair play overall. In case of leaders assignments it would be fun to have an automated courier ship(luxury required) try to take a commander from his current location to his assigned ship. It would be nice if a ship that was nullified by black hole that all officers on board are dead too(I had such situation, I had a ship with flag bridge full high-ranking officers and a good captain crash into the singularity horizon. Only two persons that were not commnading anything (rotated stuff) died. Captain and all TF survived somehow...)
Post by: TheDeadlyShoe on September 08, 2012, 11:28:42 PM
ps you could always liquidate those officers yourself... :)
Post by: Jeltz on September 10, 2012, 10:47:05 AM
RLI = (sum of max RL actually manageable for all the reseachers) - (the total number of RL in the colony)
if RLI = 0, Ok! Every resercher may have assigned the max number of RL
if RLI = n > 0, I must build n RL for reaching the max capability for every resercher
if RLI = n < 0, there is a surplus of RL, I need more reserchers...
Is it a good idea?
Post by: Theokrat on September 10, 2012, 12:09:33 PM
Question: how many Research Lab can I build for maximize all my research project? I have sufficient or I have a surplus of RL? Actually the number is achieved with paper and pencil. An helpful index (RLI) on the Reserch tab must be:Maybe that's just me, but I never had more RL than manageable by my scientists. I was actually under the impression that scientists were spawned by research labs (and not the academy), so the number of scientists would always be proportional to RL and baring some freak bad luck with the random numbers, there would always be someone ready to move into a new lab...
RLI = (sum of max RL actually manageable for all the reseachers) - (the total number of RL in the colony)
if RLI = 0, Ok! Every resercher may have assigned the max number of RL
if RLI = n > 0, I must build n RL for reaching the max capability for every resercher
if RLI = n < 0, there is a surplus of RL, I need more reserchers...
Is it a good idea?
Post by: Zook on September 10, 2012, 12:16:38 PM
Post by: telegraph on September 10, 2012, 05:43:42 PM
But it's rarely useful to assign the max number of RL to a scientist, because the time gained decreases with every lab.
I am pretty sure it is not so.
every technology has a RP cost. every lab generates a flat amount of RP, influenced by research rate tech and scientist bonus. every 5-day the generated RP are substracted from the needed RP. Once RP needed is 0 - you got your tech(+- 5 days).
Post by: Erik L on September 10, 2012, 06:15:30 PM
For example (numbers all made up):
A scientist with admin rating 2 (10 labs), and a bonus of 0%, with a base rating of 100RP/lab. If the scientist is assigned 1 lab, he generates 100RP per year. If he has all 10 assigned, he generates 1000RP per year. If his bonus is 10%, he generates 1100RP per year with 10 labs outside of his field. In his field he generates 1400 RP per year.
Increase the base tech to 150, and your scientists generate more RP. Add more labs to a particular scientist, and he generates more RP. He gains bonus, his RP goes up.
Post by: Grigio87 on September 13, 2012, 06:53:34 PM
Very simple idea:
Hangar, Boat Bay, Grav-Sensor = Commercial module (not military)
-
With Civilian Hangar we can build big Mothership (big Hangar, CIWS, maintenance module, fuel storage, maint supplies), Space Station, ecc...
-
Grav-sensor M - Geo-sensor C, what is the sense?
Post by: Erik L on September 13, 2012, 07:50:19 PM
Grav-sensor M - Geo-sensor C, what is the sense?
Grav sensors are military because they provide strategic intelligence.
Post by: Grigio87 on September 14, 2012, 01:58:56 AM
Grav sensors are military because they provide strategic intelligence.
Ehm, whati is strategic intelligence? :-[
Post by: sloanjh on September 14, 2012, 10:34:06 AM
Ehm, whati is strategic intelligence? :-[
The warp network. Geo just helps your economy by finding minerals. Grav finds WP, which can give you new and exciting ways to attack other civs.
John
Post by: Grigio87 on September 14, 2012, 01:51:03 PM
The warp network. Geo just helps your economy by finding minerals. Grav finds WP, which can give you new and exciting ways to attack other civs.
John
But i can use minerals for military purposes ;D
Post by: waresky on September 16, 2012, 09:07:07 AM
most for buy a Military power..:)
Post by: TheDeadlyShoe on September 17, 2012, 03:59:29 AM
Post by: jseah on September 17, 2012, 06:26:43 PM
Pack a commercial and military jumpship, fuel refinery, a couple of geosurvey, asteroid miners and maintenance ships; have a minimal size grav sensor ship and you have an independent task force. Sure, it'll have to stop here and there to stock up, but if you keep the grav sensors to 1 or 2 -minimal- ships (<1ktons FACs), a few asteroid miners should be able to keep up.
Post by: TheDeadlyShoe on September 17, 2012, 08:08:50 PM
Post by: sloanjh on September 18, 2012, 08:53:42 AM
John
Post by: Grigio87 on September 24, 2012, 05:53:59 AM
Suggestion: Hyper Drive with automatic activation as soon as you pass hyper limit
Post by: Zook on September 25, 2012, 09:13:20 AM
Also a tiny little button on the colony overview tab to show fractural amounts of stuff, like 0.3547 of a GF training facility.
Post by: Erik L on September 25, 2012, 12:24:08 PM
If you find infrastructure in ruins, your stupid civvies start shipping colonists in. Would be nice if there were a way to stop that.
Also a tiny little button on the colony overview tab to show fractural amounts of stuff, like 0.3547 of a GF training facility.
Set it as a source of colonists instead of a destination on the Civilian tab of the Economics screen.
Post by: Zook on September 25, 2012, 01:50:23 PM
Post by: bean on September 25, 2012, 02:07:32 PM
These are mostly cleaned up and worked-out versions of things I posted back in the spring. I tried to flesh them out some to make them easier to implement.
1. Officer auto assignment.
Would it be possible to get the auto-assign to assign officers that don't have crew training ratings or the relevant abilities, after all the officers with relevant abilities are assigned? I tend to try to fill those slots, but in a large games, it's sort of a chore.
2. Crew rotation and pool tracking.
I find the current system to be incredibly simplistic. You have two levels, conscript and pool. Nothing else, and unless I'm mistaken, the the crew in the pool persists forever. Also, the crew will stay with a ship forever, and then magic people appear on scrapping. The entire system only makes sense if the crew are actually robots.
Here's my suggestion. First, the crew pool tracks people and points separately. The academy has a level that it pumps people in at. For example, it may add 100 people and 20000 points in a given week. These are added to the pool values. When a ship is commissioned, it takes the correct number of people and points, based on the pool averages. Adjusting the academy training level only affects the inflow, not what's already in the pool. Also, people should leave the pool. Maybe 5% a year, of average points. In wartime, you can check a box which temporarily slows the loss rate, but eventually (5 to 10 years later) it comes back to normal, or even goes higher. After you uncheck it, the war timer counts backwards until it reaches 0, so people don't just toggle it on and off when they get to the point of diminishing returns.
Second, rotate people on ships. To make it easy, whenever a ship gets shore leave, a certain number of people rotate back into the pool, based on how long it's been out. Maybe 10% per year. They're replaced with normal people from the pool. This is to avoid the "ICBM station with an enormous crew rating" problem.
Third, allow picked crews, and unpicked crews. These have maybe 150% and 50% of normal points, respectively, taking the appropriate number of people and points from the pool, and getting those values when the crew rotates. This is to allow you to have a good crew on your fancy new battleship, and give your second-line PDCs the dregs.
3. Automation of ships.
Automation has several effects. First, no crew required (obviously). Second, no onboard repair. Thirdly, no captain, and the crew grade is fixed, and set by the level of automation system you use. Fourth, there is a fixed "fleet training rating" that can't be altered, and is also set by the automation system. Fifth, docking with a crewed ship should be able to repair the vessel, and maybe reduce the maintainence clock some. Something like the shore leave system, where you have "time since last tune-up" and "time since last overhaul".
4. Task Force Training.
Have TF training drain off. It's entirely possible to train a ship up all the way, park it in orbit, and leave it there for a decade or two. I'd suggest having ships work up faster than they do today (maybe a year at training 100). The points persist as long as the crew is away from shore, but when they get to shore, the points start to drain off. After the shore leave timer is exhausted, the points drain at maybe 2% a month. This way, ships have to keep training occasionally. After a refit, for example, a ship would have to work up again to get back to full efficiency. The drain is slow enough that a ship would only have to go to sea about one month out of four.
Post by: Zook on September 25, 2012, 03:20:31 PM
And if there were to be an increase in crew management in the game then crews should become more important first. For example, badly trained crews could fail to put out fires after an explosion, or cause a significant increase in the breakdown rate. Otherwise crew management would be just more "chrome".
Post by: swarm_sadist on September 25, 2012, 09:12:39 PM
1. Officer auto assignment.Adding a feature to cherry pick candidates may be helpful as well. Say two additional levels below normal officers: unsatisfactory level and probationary level, both of which are set by the player. Unsatisfactory level is the promotion score an officer must be generated with in order to join the officer pool. Failure to do so could result in a message such as "13 officers finished their war college this month with failing grade, and are therefor unable to become [LowestRankRelevant]". Maybe making it so that a certain initiative or training score is required for graduation, or that the officer has at least one score above a set limit will also reduce the number of useless officers in the pool. A probationary officer is one who passed, but just passed, again by the players standards. They will not be put on any ship that does not have the conscript box checked and they are the first to be deemed surplus. This would allow me to have 25+ academies in my empire turning through hundreds of officers searching for only the best there are.
Would it be possible to get the auto-assign to assign officers that don't have crew training ratings or the relevant abilities, after all the officers with relevant abilities are assigned? I tend to try to fill those slots, but in a large games, it's sort of a chore.
Quote
2. Crew rotation and pool tracking.While I'm all for this, this all may be a lot farther than 6.1. Except of course for the 'elite' crew, which would take about two hours of coding. Maybe having the training rating expanded on would be a better plan. Based on WW2 and the use of total warfare and complete industrialization of most nations in that period, four years seems to be the absolute maximum that an industrialized nation is able to be fully mobilized before completely breaking down.
I find the current system to be incredibly simplistic. You have two levels, conscript and pool. Nothing else, and unless I'm mistaken, the the crew in the pool persists forever. Also, the crew will stay with a ship forever, and then magic people appear on scrapping. The entire system only makes sense if the crew are actually robots.
Here's my suggestion. First, the crew pool tracks people and points separately. The academy has a level that it pumps people in at. For example, it may add 100 people and 20000 points in a given week. These are added to the pool values. When a ship is commissioned, it takes the correct number of people and points, based on the pool averages. Adjusting the academy training level only affects the inflow, not what's already in the pool. Also, people should leave the pool. Maybe 5% a year, of average points. In wartime, you can check a box which temporarily slows the loss rate, but eventually (5 to 10 years later) it comes back to normal, or even goes higher. After you uncheck it, the war timer counts backwards until it reaches 0, so people don't just toggle it on and off when they get to the point of diminishing returns.
Second, rotate people on ships. To make it easy, whenever a ship gets shore leave, a certain number of people rotate back into the pool, based on how long it's been out. Maybe 10% per year. They're replaced with normal people from the pool. This is to avoid the "ICBM station with an enormous crew rating" problem.
Third, allow picked crews, and unpicked crews. These have maybe 150% and 50% of normal points, respectively, taking the appropriate number of people and points from the pool, and getting those values when the crew rotates. This is to allow you to have a good crew on your fancy new battleship, and give your second-line PDCs the dregs.
Quote
3. Automation of ships.I don't see why an AI would not be able to learn, nor require task force training. Robots can also repair the ship just as effectively as any organic crew. All they would need is a dedicated repair component IE: Damage Control. The level of AI should determine how much the AI can learn, how fast it learns (It's default training level, since it is unaffected by commanders), and the initiative.
Automation has several effects. First, no crew required (obviously). Second, no onboard repair. Thirdly, no captain, and the crew grade is fixed, and set by the level of automation system you use. Fourth, there is a fixed "fleet training rating" that can't be altered, and is also set by the automation system. Fifth, docking with a crewed ship should be able to repair the vessel, and maybe reduce the maintainence clock some. Something like the shore leave system, where you have "time since last tune-up" and "time since last overhaul".
Quote
4. Task Force Training.I like this; some additional thoughts. Although leaving a ship in orbit would be the worst thing for a crews' TF training, wandering around the solar system on patrol would also sap the task force training, especially for an auxiliary ship such as a deep space scout. A ship in combat during WW2 did not have to do training exercises for most of the war because they were at war. Their skills were not rusting in dry dock and their new recruits were usually sailors who were rescued hours before from their other ship. Today's navies require constant training just because of the fact that they spend most of their time in harbor, without any sort of enemy to prepare for. Just being 'out there' does not mean a ship should have their training level stay where it is, it should drop no matter what. It should just somehow restore itself during combat manoeuvres.
Have TF training drain off. It's entirely possible to train a ship up all the way, park it in orbit, and leave it there for a decade or two. I'd suggest having ships work up faster than they do today (maybe a year at training 100). The points persist as long as the crew is away from shore, but when they get to shore, the points start to drain off. After the shore leave timer is exhausted, the points drain at maybe 2% a month. This way, ships have to keep training occasionally. After a refit, for example, a ship would have to work up again to get back to full efficiency. The drain is slow enough that a ship would only have to go to sea about one month out of four.
Edit: A feature to have maintenance not cost any resources, instead requiring just time and wealth to maintain with maintenance facilities.
Post by: sloanjh on September 26, 2012, 12:12:56 AM
1. Officer auto assignment.
Would it be possible to get the auto-assign to assign officers that don't have crew training ratings or the relevant abilities, after all the officers with relevant abilities are assigned? I tend to try to fill those slots, but in a large games, it's sort of a chore.
Seconded. Actually, I think I might have already asked for this a long time ago....
John
Post by: Bgreman on September 26, 2012, 12:24:19 AM
1) On the upcoming production overview window and perhaps the industry tab itself, a toggle that changes the display so that instead of viewing the time when the total amount of a project is finished, it would display the time when the NEXT unit of that order will be completed. E.g. if I'm producing 10 research labs, instead of telling me the date when the last one will be done, it tells me the date when the NEXT one will be done.
2) More things for espionage teams to do.
- I'd like to be able to have them find out about ongoing enemy production projects (I.e., the Federation is producing 5 DSTS using 234.8 construction points per year (don't show the percent, so that we don't know the total amount of production available).
- The same for enemy shipbuilding projects.
- Information about existing enemy ships (names, numbers of a given class, commander, etc)
- Information about enemy colonies (for example, finding out that the Federation's Mars colony has 3 construction factories).
- Location (coordinates) of a single enemy ship or task force (would show up as a lost contact)
- Location (system/body) of an unknown enemy colony (would show up as a lost contacct)
- Acts of sabotage (destroying an installation or supply or missile stockpile, causing a production setback on a ship or industry project)
- Income/Expenditure information (wealth report) of an enemy faction
Post by: bean on September 26, 2012, 01:22:06 AM
Adding a feature to cherry pick candidates may be helpful as well. Say two additional levels below normal officers: unsatisfactory level and probationary level, both of which are set by the player. Unsatisfactory level is the promotion score an officer must be generated with in order to join the officer pool. Failure to do so could result in a message such as "13 officers finished their war college this month with failing grade, and are therefor unable to become [LowestRankRelevant]". Maybe making it so that a certain initiative or training score is required for graduation, or that the officer has at least one score above a set limit will also reduce the number of useless officers in the pool. A probationary officer is one who passed, but just passed, again by the players standards. They will not be put on any ship that does not have the conscript box checked and they are the first to be deemed surplus. This would allow me to have 25+ academies in my empire turning through hundreds of officers searching for only the best there are.That's even better. Surplus auto-assign would be nice, too, but half of the problem is just the sheer number of officers.
Quote
While I'm all for this, this all may be a lot farther than 6.1. Except of course for the 'elite' crew, which would take about two hours of coding. Maybe having the training rating expanded on would be a better plan. Based on WW2 and the use of total warfare and complete industrialization of most nations in that period, four years seems to be the absolute maximum that an industrialized nation is able to be fully mobilized before completely breaking down.As much as anything, I'm trying to keep it simple. A more realistic rotation rate would be 25% per year, and with more complex effects. I just am slightly put off by the current robot crew system.
Quote
I like this; some additional thoughts. Although leaving a ship in orbit would be the worst thing for a crews' TF training, wandering around the solar system on patrol would also sap the task force training, especially for an auxiliary ship such as a deep space scout. A ship in combat during WW2 did not have to do training exercises for most of the war because they were at war. Their skills were not rusting in dry dock and their new recruits were usually sailors who were rescued hours before from their other ship. Today's navies require constant training just because of the fact that they spend most of their time in harbor, without any sort of enemy to prepare for. Just being 'out there' does not mean a ship should have their training level stay where it is, it should drop no matter what. It should just somehow restore itself during combat manoeuvres.I know, but I was trying to make it relatively easy to code. Some of it is that a deep-space scout is not going to be doing weapons drills, but the crew will probably be pretty good at "go that way" which is what you really want if there's trouble.
Edit:
One thing that would have to be addressed is how conscript-only ships would interact with the pool. If they work normally (except not drawing people or points from the pool) the pool would rapidly flood with untrained people. At a guess, any conscript-only ships should just dump the 10% and have it disappear. If for some reason a conscript-only ship happens to get a good crew, set the ship for lowest 50% instead before you dock it.
I don't see why an AI would not be able to learn, nor require task force training. Robots can also repair the ship just as effectively as any organic crew. All they would need is a dedicated repair component IE: Damage Control. The level of AI should determine how much the AI can learn, how fast it learns (It's default training level, since it is unaffected by commanders), and the initiative.I was looking more at remote-controlled dedicated vessels. Admittedly, that suggestion was motivated by my biases with respect to automation and AI. (The ship is like a UAV, not a manned ship crewed by robots, and no strong AI). At the same time, I was trying to differentiate automated ships from manned ones more strongly.
Post by: Zook on September 26, 2012, 07:51:23 PM
Post by: bean on September 27, 2012, 06:58:11 PM
1. Introduce crew pay
This might only apply to those in the pool for simplicity's sake. There is a certain charge per person, and a certain charge per grade point. This way, you can't build up a huge reserve of crew like you can now, at least not cost-free.
2. Reintroduce mothballing
I know that at one point, this was in the game, but it got removed for balance reasons. It should work fairly well with my other proposed changes. The problem with a vessel coming out of mothballs is that it has no crew, it's not worked up, and its maintainence clock should tick slowly (maybe 10 to 1 or so). So to put it in action, you have to get a crew, overhaul the ship, and work it up. While, presumably, you're in a war. And the crew is likely to be pretty green. Particularly if you have to pay inactive crew, you won't have a huge number sitting around waiting for the war. So a ship just coming out of mothballs has a green crew, a TF training of 0, and time on the maintainence clock, compared to one that was already in service. All in all, not a bad trade.
Post by: Zook on October 02, 2012, 08:49:56 PM
Post by: waresky on October 04, 2012, 11:24:54 AM
Wait for 5.7 or 6.0 and stop:)
Post by: telegraph on October 15, 2012, 10:29:21 AM
I would like following conditions:
1. Has a broken component component. (severe maintenance failure happened, time for repair)
2. MSP is below max level. (maintenance failure happened, time for overhaul)
3. Morale is below max level.
4. Shore leave ended.
5. Overhaul ended.
6. repair ended.
I would like to have following conditional orders:
1. repair at nearest shipyard.
2. repair at assigned mothership.
3. overhaul and resuply at nearest shipyard.
4. overhaul and resuply at assigned mothership.
5. Shore leave at eligible planet.
6. Shore leave at assigned mothership.
7. Start TF training.
Or maybe it would be good to exclude ships in TF training from maintenance checks and deployment time checks? After all they are flying not far from home and should visit docks from time to time.
Post by: Nathan_ on October 16, 2012, 12:53:36 PM
Post by: UnLimiTeD on October 17, 2012, 05:35:38 AM
Real stars are known stars at known positions, which might increase immersion; I can agree with that assessment, however, it also costs gameplay, as there's no chance of Black holes or nebulae.
So I'd like to suggest a mixed option:
If you start at Sol, you can set a % and distance difference.
Example:
- 75% chance to find a real star system from a real star system
- 75% chance to find a fantasy system from a fantasy system
- If same system type, reduce generated system distance by X
That would allow a sort of RP where some wormholes lead to very far away systems in yet uncharted space.[/list]
Post by: metalax on October 19, 2012, 06:49:31 AM
While disscusing about setting up a mobile species, two things came up that hold you to a specific colony for significant time, underway construction, via shipyard or industry, and ongoing research. While you can load partal installations into cargo bays so that construction can continue later and it kind of makes sense that you can't bring along a partially constructed ship, it does not make sense that research data has to be abandoned entirely.
I'd like to see an option to upload partial research data to specified ship, perhaps at a 10%-20% loss so that it is a significant decision to do so. When the ship reaches the new colony that will be continuing research it will then have the option to download all research data to the colony giving it the partial progress in research that had been uploaded earlier. If the new research colony has already researched passed the point that is saved in the ship, then there is no further benefit from it.
Post by: Nathan_ on October 19, 2012, 01:20:56 PM
As with the above, to facilitate refueling, put all civilian fuel harvesters(regardless of owner) into the same taskforce at each fuel source, so that when they are scrapped, any order to refill from the taskforce as a whole is preserved.
Post by: x2yzh9 on October 21, 2012, 06:32:31 PM
I mainly lurk here, but I've been playing aurora quite a bit lately and I noticed one thing that is missing, at least in comparison to all the other deep features, is deep diplomacy. I don't know whether or not Steve would be interested in doing some work on this portion of the game, but if I feel that was coded in-Things such as suing for peace, treatys, trading colonies, ground units, minerals and so on would provide for a much more deep(than it already is, that is :P) experience. That's the only thing thats really missing from the game, imo.
Post by: swarm_sadist on October 23, 2012, 11:05:40 AM
1. Fix the hide active ID so that it actually collapses the names down. May be a bug.
2. Add the ability to designate enemy ship classes as civilian, and be able to hide their names when you select "Hide civilian names".
3. Give general orders to civilian shipping, such as:
-Go to capital planet and stay there until instructed otherwise
-Go to nearest planet
-Go to specified planet
-Leave system to anywhere known
-Leave system towards capital
-Leave to specified system
-Stay still and turn off engines
Also allow the player to change the orders for each system, or make the general order dependent upon conditions, such as active enemy presence in the system.
4. Sort intelligence by ship type, both manually and automatic. Maybe make names dependent upon a list of criteria, such as whether it's a military ship, civilian, PDC, fighter, etc. Make some way to figure this stuff out without having to board the enemy ship.
4a. A way to filter out different types of contacts on the system map, whether just removing their name, changing their colour or shading, or filtering them out completely.
5. Have design and hull names dependent upon previous designs and class. EX: shipName " (" hullType "-" hullNumber ")" turns into Pheonix (CV-192). Automatically.
6. Have a filter that collapses the contacts into simplified data, such as: 4x(3) destroyer size, 6x(1) gunboat size, with the first number being the number, the second being the number of different classes in that size range.
Post by: Arwyn on October 24, 2012, 01:31:03 AM
Post by: Steve Walmsley on October 28, 2012, 10:35:32 AM
When releasing ships from a tractor beam at a planet rather than put them all in their own taskforces, perhaps they should be in 1 taskforce named after the 1st ship released.
You can already select a fleet as the target for the release tractor order. When the tractor is released, the ship is added to the destination fleet.
Steve
Post by: Omnivore on October 28, 2012, 11:05:18 AM
[Added]
At present, the effect of information lag is being ignored. At a mere 30 mkm, a sensor is receiving ship position data that is 100 seconds old. Even if the fire control to missile link was ftl and didn't cause a further 100 second delay, the target could easily have moved a few hundred thousand ship cross-sections or more away in a random direction from the observed point. Without on-board guidance, the missiles should *always* miss against maneuver capable evading targets.
[/Added]
Post by: Omnivore on October 29, 2012, 07:23:00 PM
Post by: metalax on October 29, 2012, 08:18:37 PM
Take sensor light speed lag into account for missiles by requiring all missiles with a warhead to include a sensor of at least some minimum strength. Even if no other change was made than to simply require the additional space, it would invalidate the 'small missile is always best' equation and give beam weapons a (in my opinion) much needed comparative boost.
[Added]
At present, the effect of information lag is being ignored. At a mere 30 mkm, a sensor is receiving ship position data that is 100 seconds old. Even if the fire control to missile link was ftl and didn't cause a further 100 second delay, the target could easily have moved a few hundred thousand ship cross-sections or more away in a random direction from the observed point. Without on-board guidance, the missiles should *always* miss against maneuver capable evading targets.
[/Added]
Aurora operates with superluminal sensors and communications, you don't need to wait for the lightcone to reach your sensor from a moving target before knowing it's new loction.
Having to work from contacts that may be minutes or even hours old uif you remove the superluminal quality from sensors and communications may be realistic but it would swiftly become more complex than most people would want to deal with.
Post by: Omnivore on October 29, 2012, 08:57:54 PM
Quote from: metalax link=topic=2828. msg56552#msg56552 date=1351559917
Aurora operates with superluminal sensors and communications, you don't need to wait for the lightcone to reach your sensor from a moving target before knowing it's new loction.
Having to work from contacts that may be minutes or even hours old uif you remove the superluminal quality from sensors and communications may be realistic but it would swiftly become more complex than most people would want to deal with.
Then require long range ASM's to have a superluminal communications receiver. Even one as small as 0. 1 MSP would, I think, result in a better balance between ASMs, AMMs, and beam weapons.
However I disagree that Aurora necessarily operates with superluminal sensors, else why does it have infrared and electromagnetic sensors? Merely the use of godmode 'super-luminal' like information transmission is given to the player to avoid the complexities you mention - just like most every other computer wargame or simulation. It is an abstraction of the presentation, not necessarily the truth of what is being modeled.
Post by: sublight on October 29, 2012, 10:12:32 PM
First, EM/Thermal passive sensors can easily be considered light-speed detection. Since ships/missiles are typically much much slower than light speed the 'sneak peck' has minimal impact on the strategic scale, and the tactical significance of the time lag could easily be the reason why passive sensors don't provide targeting solutions.
More importantly, requiring a small sensor on all missiles would actually make a missile offenses stronger since the smallest of all missiles, antimissile missiles, would suffer the most in their roll.
I'd suggest instead making fractional damage weapons for anti-missile defense. Countering increased numbers of fractional damage point defenses would require adding missile armor, which favors larger offensive missiles without penalizing existing anti-missiles.
Here are two fractional damage ideas:
1) Fragmentation Missiles. This replaces the defunct Laser Warhead. A Fragmentation missile might make 2x attacks per point of warhead, each hit doing 0.3-0.5 damage depending on tech level. Alternatively, they might make N attacks at 1/(N+1)th damage, where N increases with tech level. Either way, using fragmentation anti-missiles would be much more effective against unarmored missiles, slightly less effective against well armored missiles, and useless in offensive use against other ships and fighters.
2) Small Gauss Cannons. 2/3rds size (4HS), but each shot only does 0.5 damage. This option provides +50% more shots per HS for your Gauss turrets and CIWS at the cost of losing offensive capabilities.
Also, I'd like to petition that a 0.33x reduced size laser tech be added, with research costs and recharge time across the entire reduced laser tree be reduced to only double that of the equivalent missile launcher miniaturization techs.
Post by: Omnivore on October 29, 2012, 10:42:29 PM
Quote from: sublight link=topic=2828. msg56555#msg56555 date=1351566752
More importantly, requiring a small sensor on all missiles would actually make a missile offenses stronger since the smallest of all missiles, antimissile missiles, would suffer the most in their roll.
I left AMMs out, suggesting the requirement of a sensor/receiver/whatever on ASMs not AMMs. However, to be thorough and consistent, I suggest that missile thermal signatures are *much* hotter than that of ships, so that if you required sensors across the board on all missiles, AMMs would be able to use significantly smaller sensors. That is to say, the sensor requirement as a percentage of missile mass could/should be significantly less than that of ASMs - avoiding penalizing AMMs in comparison and having an acceptable level of handwavium explanation for doing so. (hotter targets, shorter ranges) ;D
Post by: dgibso29 on October 29, 2012, 10:48:21 PM
Reduce fighter command requirements to rank 1. Currently fighter command requires the same command rank as a destroyer or even the carrier that carries it.
Unless I am misunderstanding you, all you need to do is go to the DAC/Rank tab in the Class Design window, change the rank from the Drop-down, and click Save. Easy fix.
Post by: Marski on October 31, 2012, 02:38:17 PM
*edit - merged into suggestions topic - Erik*
Post by: sloanjh on October 31, 2012, 04:12:58 PM
However I disagree that Aurora necessarily operates with superluminal sensors, else why does it have infrared and electromagnetic sensors? Merely the use of godmode 'super-luminal' like information transmission is given to the player to avoid the complexities you mention - just like most every other computer wargame or simulation. It is an abstraction of the presentation, not necessarily the truth of what is being modeled.
FYI it's canon - Steve has explicitly said that the sensors are superluminal because he doesn't want to have to deal with the complexity (especially from a game interface/tracking point of view) that speed-of-light lag would add to the game. And "thermal" (not infrared) and EM sensors are actually picking up TN emissions that are a lot like the corresponding "today's world" sensors - think of them as analogous to Weber's gravitic sensors. Yes it's all just technobabble to excuse avoiding dealing with speed of light issues, but it's the game author's technobabble :)
John
Post by: sloanjh on October 31, 2012, 04:13:52 PM
Hey Steve, any possibility to put scroll on the officer's medal view so that I don't get errors when an officer has many medals, and could you also increase the amount of text for medal/order describtion?
LOL - All that ironmongery for the Soviet brass weighing down your game? :)
John
Post by: waresky on November 01, 2012, 04:33:14 AM
And the word are too little to recognize fast them..
(apologize horror English mode On:)
Ah DAMN!! this is 5.2 Suggestion....my fault.
Post by: Vordarian on November 01, 2012, 12:52:53 PM
Post by: bean on November 01, 2012, 03:02:40 PM
Post by: alex_brunius on November 02, 2012, 10:21:18 AM
In my game I have about 100 civilian ships which seems like a huge amount considering I only colonized 3-4 systems.
Faster engines lategame just magnify the problem, civilian ships travelling faster reach new destinations quicker and require more CPU.
Wouldn't it be possible to make the lategame more playable by introducing a technology line "Cargo compression" so that both your ships and civilian ships can fit more cargo into the same hold.
Or perhaps you could just adjust the size so that lategame civilian designs are 10-20 times as big.
The reason is simple: Fewer ships carrying more = less lag for the same job done.
Post by: Beersatron on November 02, 2012, 11:34:55 AM
I understand civilian shipping lines can get really out of hand lategame, and slow the game down to a crawl.
In my game I have about 100 civilian ships which seems like a huge amount considering I only colonized 3-4 systems.
Faster engines lategame just magnify the problem, civilian ships travelling faster reach new destinations quicker and require more CPU.
Wouldn't it be possible to make the lategame more playable by introducing a technology line "Cargo compression" so that both your ships and civilian ships can fit more cargo into the same hold.
Or perhaps you could just adjust the size so that lategame civilian designs are 10-20 times as big.
The reason is simple: Fewer ships carrying more = less lag for the same job done.
I am fairly certain that 6.0 introduced recycling of civilian ships by the actual shipping lines to help reduce this issue. What version are you playing? If it is still producing a lot of ships it might be worth suggesting to Steve that he increase the chance of decomishing freighters.
Post by: Jumpp on November 02, 2012, 11:55:12 AM
Post by: bean on November 02, 2012, 12:02:03 PM
It'd be cool if the Warp Point Data sidebar in the Galactic Map indicated which warp points had jump gates on them.If there's a jump gate on both ends, the link turns yellow/orange.
Post by: Conscript Gary on November 02, 2012, 12:50:54 PM
Post by: alex_brunius on November 02, 2012, 01:23:11 PM
I am fairly certain that 6.0 introduced recycling of civilian ships by the actual shipping lines to help reduce this issue. What version are you playing? If it is still producing a lot of ships it might be worth suggesting to Steve that he increase the chance of decomishing freighters.Don't see how that reduce lag from a lot of ships circling around though since it wouldn't reduce the amount of active ships from the sound of it?
My idea is simple...
If instead of having 10 times as many ships to service 10 times as much traffic each ship carriers 10 times as much cargo there is no extra lag at all lategame.
Post by: bean on November 02, 2012, 02:15:01 PM
Don't see how that reduce lag from a lot of ships circling around though since it wouldn't reduce the amount of active ships from the sound of it?Basically, you want to have larger ships built later in the game.
My idea is simple...
If instead of having 10 times as many ships to service 10 times as much traffic each ship carriers 10 times as much cargo there is no extra lag at all lategame.
The potential problem is that the shipping lines need to buy each ship. Making ships bigger means you have fewer of them overall, and doesn't give you as much money. Why?
First, because money sitting and waiting for an appropriate amount to be collected for a new ship isn't doing anything. A smaller ship bought with the same money is.
Second, things like dividends would complicate buying them. If a shipping line doesn't make enough with its current ships to pay for one new ship a year, it never gets new ships. Then it goes away when they age out. A new line will need massive subsidies to get started.
Third, a big ship is less versatile than a bunch of small ones. If you need one automated mine carried, it's best to do it on a ship with a standard cargo bay. Some early worlds might not supply or demand enough stuff to make a run with a big ship viable, leaving them ignored.
Another problem is that late game is relative. If you do a conventional start, you could have ships coming out of your ears with only ion engines. If you start with ion engines, you might get to magnetic confinement fusion before the problem starts. So the biasing would have to be relative to the current civilian fleet, not an absolute.
That's not to say that some bias in fleet buying is a bad idea. Maybe set it up so that as more ships get built, the bigger ones are more likely than the smaller ones.
Post by: clement on November 02, 2012, 02:19:41 PM
Post by: alex_brunius on November 02, 2012, 03:43:46 PM
The potential problem is that the shipping lines need to buy each ship. Making ships bigger means you have fewer of them overall, and doesn't give you as much money. Why?So trade needs to be more profitable later on aswell for the idea to work (or dividends need to be made smaller).
First, because money sitting and waiting for an appropriate amount to be collected for a new ship isn't doing anything. A smaller ship bought with the same money is.
Increasing the amount of trade goods that civilian ships can carry overall might make sense, my lines with 100 ships hardly seem to make a dent in the trade goods my moderate 2000m population spread out over a few systems generates.
There need to be some balance though, to much profit and builds will spiral out of control.
If I understand the civilian fleet changes in 6.x, then the fleet recycling in means that a civilian fleet will be retiring older ships once they hit a certain age as the technology improves where as right now the civilian ships keep old ships around. This should prevent a situation where a civilian company owns hundreds of ships.Yes, but several shipping lines can easily get their total above 100 still.
Post by: Nathan_ on November 02, 2012, 05:42:55 PM
Post by: Jumpp on November 02, 2012, 08:57:26 PM
If there's a jump gate on both ends, the link turns yellow/orange.
Are you sure? I see that in the system map, but not in the Warp Point Data sidebar of the Galactic Map.
Post by: bean on November 02, 2012, 10:26:34 PM
Are you sure? I see that in the system map, but not in the Warp Point Data sidebar of the Galactic Map.The actual link between the worlds turns yellow on the map. I haven't used the warp points sidebar, to be honest.
Post by: PTTG on November 03, 2012, 01:09:05 AM
- When an event has been filtered out of the event viewer menu, do not halt the simulation for it.
- Standing production orders: Create production orders that act like "continual capacity expansion". For instance, devoting either 1% or 10 factories to producing maintenance supplies, or permanently having 50% of factories set to produce more factories.
- When missiles are completed, add them to the pool immediately, rather than waiting for the whole job to complete. Or is this already the case? I thought I was seeing this on my end.
- Print money: Use CD drives to produce undetectable forgeries of major modern currency.
- Smaller default list of spaceship classes: I like to name and define each of my classes. It'd be great if I could do that from a blank slate, and/or remove obsolete classes.
Post by: Paul M on November 03, 2012, 01:48:21 PM
If nothing else this prevents people sufficating from lack of air processing machinery.
Post by: Erik L on November 03, 2012, 05:58:33 PM
Post by: Naismith on November 03, 2012, 08:32:38 PM
I find that when I'm playing on a single monitor I have to keep flipping back and forth between the system map and the events window, so that I can see what's going on. Having the controls on the event window would let me run the game from there and only switch when I need to change something. I've attached a quick mockup of what I have in mind.
Post by: Jumpp on November 03, 2012, 09:46:28 PM
Post by: ollobrains on November 03, 2012, 10:38:23 PM
It'd be nice to have some way to offer bigger shipping fees. That way, if you've got a lot of stuff you want moved, and lots of money in your pocket, and the shipping companies are mostly ignoring you because their trade goods runs are more profitable, you can shift the incentives around and get their attention.
some way of moving youre wealth has potential. Premium to move or an urgency button. Dunno find in my games the civs are very random sometimes no colonizers are built for ages in my current game 4 FH 2 freighters but no civ moving of colonists fixed that by doing it myself.
Maybe specific freighter lines focusing on certain things. That said with the Fuel harvestors broken they move towards the gas giant but never arrive and sit there for 8-10 years before their designs get obselted
Post by: wilddog5 on November 06, 2012, 03:24:22 AM
sorry if it dosn't read well just got up
Post by: Nathan_ on November 06, 2012, 01:05:30 PM
Post by: PTTG on November 07, 2012, 07:43:03 PM
This is the skill of effectively jumping through a point. In tactical jumps, ships are more likely to appear far from the jump point on arrival (up to the maximum of the drive), and in any jump, having a high skill for this provides a bonus to recover from jump sickness.
High Performance Piloting Skill
Replace Fighter Operation with High Performance Piloting, representing skill at moving a ship with relatively high accelleration to avoid damage efficiently through a combination of jinking and feinting. Any ship could benefit from this, but the ratio of Acceleration to mass has a multiplicating effect on this.
The effect is that all hits on a vessel could have a 5% chance to "miss" depending on skill.
This makes all fighters somewhat more useful and strongly rewards smaller, faster ships.
Mineral Rolling Reballance:
Currently, a planet with two minerals at 0.6 accessability is much, much better than a planet with one mineral at 0.9 accessability. This is only natural, as the one with two minerals is effectively 50% better in terms of total tonnage of mineral output.
This is why HW-level minerals are so fantastic- they can easily have a total accessability of something like 7 or 8, meaning your mines are eight times as productive as they would be on a different planet with just one mineral at 1 accessability.
The mineral generator should balance the variety of minerals with the prevalence of minerals. Further, there should be extremely high accessability minerals to enable very attractive, small-term motherlodes of single types, such as you might expect to find in asteroids.
A spread of potential, equally-favorable mining claims might look like this:
Planet I:
Red Stuff: 0.1 10,000 Tons
Blue Stuff: 0.2 10,000 Tons
Green Stuff: 0.3 10,000 Tons
Glowing Stuff: 0.2 10,000 Tons
Clear Stuff: 0.3 10,000 Tons
Reddish-Orange Stuff: 0.1 10,000 Tons
Plaid Stuff: 0.2 10,000 Tons
Planet II:
Glowing Stuff: 0.7 10,000 Tons
Plaid Stuff: 0.6 10,000 Tons
Planet III:
Blue Stuff: 0.8 10,000 Tons
Green Stuff: 0.1 10,000 Tons
Clear Stuff: 0.2 10,000 Tons
Reddish-Orange Stuff: 0.1 10,000 Tons
Asteroid 1224:
Red Stuff: 2.6 5,000 Tons
Gas Giant I:
Reddish-Orange Stuff: 0.4 30,000 Tons
How to actually generate this sort of thing, I'm unsure. Potentially, a planet could first figure out the relative density of each mineral, then multiply those values until, adjusting for the total quantity available, the total accessability reaches a randomly-assigned target value. Then adjusting the dice for the total acessability allows you to ensure there each system having somewhere between 0-2 good planets (TA 4+), a few moderate planets, (TA 1ish) a few bad planets (TA <0.5) and however many useless planets.
By picking a good distribution, you can feed NPC empires better, and you can more importantly drive players to get mining colonies out of the solar system, because right now earth usually has a TA of what, 7.4 or more? And, it can make it add really good planets with TAs of more than 8 which can be interesting points for conflict, but distinct enough for them to be a concern (do I go for this system, which has 1.0 accessability for everything on one planet and decades worth of minerals, or do I go for the system with the 10.0 accessability asteroid full of sorium, tritanium and duranium, which will give me 5,000 tons of each in a few months?)
Post by: bean on November 07, 2012, 08:17:01 PM
Post by: waresky on November 08, 2012, 12:59:44 AM
2 thing:1
1 Army Improvemnt (with a minimal planetary map? i dont know,Steve..if possible)
2 Ships icons,hexagon Galattic map (traveller like-style) more easy display-position
Very few thing.
Other all done.
Post by: alex_brunius on November 08, 2012, 02:12:00 AM
Mineral Rolling Reballance:I would preffer if mining was just changed to make sense instead. I don't think it's logical or makes sense that all these minerals are in the same place so they can be extracted with a single mine. That only makes sense in the case of smaller asteroids (and could perhaps be their bonus).
Currently, a planet with two minerals at 0.6 accessability is much, much better than a planet with one mineral at 0.9 accessability. This is only natural, as the one with two minerals is effectively 50% better in terms of total tonnage of mineral output.
This is why HW-level minerals are so fantastic- they can easily have a total accessability of something like 7 or 8, meaning your mines are eight times as productive as they would be on a different planet with just one mineral at 1 accessability.
Mining yield should instead be divided by the number of different minerals present (and you get to choose which ones you want to mine and which you want to ignore).
A planet with mineral A, mineral B and mineral C should need three mines to have the same base yield as a planet that only has mineral A. Or two mines if you ignore extraction of mineral C. Prefferably a checkbox right next the name where you mark which minerals you want to extract.
This would ofcourse require a rebalance with quite a bit higher base mining yields.
Post by: Conscript Gary on November 08, 2012, 02:25:56 AM
Post by: alex_brunius on November 08, 2012, 02:45:04 AM
Well, trans-newtonian elements are only formed in the core, but even just a way to designate extraction priority would be nice. Slave the allowed level of priority to an 'onsite mineral sorting' tech perhaps.Even worse if they are formed in the core as opposed to the very thin crust!
The core has a much bigger total volume to search for minerals compared to the crust we mine today, I guess you could explain it away with technobabble about high tech trans newtonian extraction methods...
But I still think it doesn't make sense and as we concluded it's not good for game balance :)
Post by: hostergaard on November 08, 2012, 07:08:31 AM
So for example a fleet can focus their training or operations on fighters and get a bonus on using them?
Oh, and having a little number that display the sum of skill percentages of all the selected officers of a team before creating the team would be great and help making the best combinations when having a lot of teams.
Post by: Paul M on November 08, 2012, 08:27:14 AM
Post by: Conscript Gary on November 08, 2012, 09:18:59 AM
Post by: alex_brunius on November 08, 2012, 09:21:36 AM
Post by: wilddog5 on November 10, 2012, 02:10:03 AM
I was thinking 0.1% per spaceport so you would need 1000 to negate that systems loss something only major colinies would have as thay have to be built on the spot.
This would allow things like pdc's on uncolinizable planets and JP defences without needing spacestations which steve seams reluctant to do.
Post by: jseah on November 10, 2012, 02:53:04 AM
If you make each spaceport cost the same as a CF, then sure. If each spaceport gave 0.05 days deployment time decrease per day, then 20 spaceports could reduce deployment time 1 day per day, which is a pretty substantial investment. (10 labs is ALOT)
Post by: wilddog5 on November 10, 2012, 08:03:49 AM
the only other way would be one spaceport per ship or something similar
Post by: swarm_sadist on November 10, 2012, 09:10:58 PM
1) One spaceport for every ship being loaded and unloaded. You can then have a cargo handling tech in logistics that improves spaceports and their loading efficiency, somewhat like how advanced cargo loaders at seaports are today. At high levels, you may have spaceports cut down loading time by 400 times. Maybe an 'automated' spaceport for really busy planets?
2) Have spaceports reduce the cost of building ships in orbit, by having a cheap way of moving materials into orbit. Again, this is the space elevator idea. Alternatively used to reduce retooling and building time.
3) Make spaceports required for ships to load and unload material from, unless they have a special system such as a planetary landing system. Alternatively, only ships below a certain mass could load and unload at planets, with larger ships requiring either shuttles, special components or spaceports in order to do so. A larger planet limits the size of the ship more than a small planetoids, thus giving us a use for a moon base.
4) Reduce the cost of spaceports and have them act similar to maintenance bases. The more spaceports, the larger the ship it can service. This would make it so that there would be super large ships traveling between your large planets, and smaller ships to the pioneer worlds.
5) Have a planet and spaceport only be able to handle the loading and unloading of so many tonnes of material at once, with each new spaceport increasing the planet's ability to handle more cargo and passengers.
6) Have a spaceport act similar to a sector command, with civilian contracts going between spaceports more often than without. You can then set up the spaceports to act like airports or seaports, allowing the ships to stop off for refueling before continuing on to further destinations. This would allow the player to set up the 'stellar highways' that I've seen several times on this forum.
7) Make it so that spaceports are required to tax the civilian shipping. A large amount of shipping will overflow the spaceport, so more would be required to continue taxing at 100% efficiency.
Post by: orfeusz on November 11, 2012, 11:54:21 AM
One thing that would be really nice is a consecutive type numbering system. Let's say that I'm building FACs, which I'm just numbering, and not actually naming. I want to start with FAC-1 and go from there, keeping the numbering across types. The idea is that you could specify a prefix (FAC-, PT-, U-, etc.) and build ships named by that prefix and using the next number. It would be possible to do this manually, making a list with a bunch of names, but an automatic method would be even better. I hope I'm making sense.
+1
I would preffer if mining was just changed to make sense instead. I don't think it's logical or makes sense that all these minerals are in the same place so they can be extracted with a single mine. That only makes sense in the case of smaller asteroids (and could perhaps be their bonus).
Mining yield should instead be divided by the number of different minerals present (and you get to choose which ones you want to mine and which you want to ignore).
A planet with mineral A, mineral B and mineral C should need three mines to have the same base yield as a planet that only has mineral A. Or two mines if you ignore extraction of mineral C. Prefferably a checkbox right next the name where you mark which minerals you want to extract.
This would ofcourse require a rebalance with quite a bit higher base mining yields.
a lot of reblancing, but i think this is great idea.
Post by: draanyk on November 12, 2012, 09:41:04 AM
Also, I just finished conquering an NPR system, and my cruiser squadrons suffered some light damage. The "ships requiring repair" screen is helpful, but it would be more helpful if the fleet screen ("Task Groups") had some indication, perhaps colour-coding the row display. I haven't touched MS RAD tools in a while, but if the colour-coding works on a per-cell basis, then this could be used to draw attention to different situations. For example, low maintenance supplies (whatever "low" is determined to be) could be indicated by highlighting the Maint Supplies cell for the ship in question, while damage to the same ship could be indicated by colour-coding on some other cell, such as the ship name. Crew months approaching deployment period could be colour-coded one colour, while exceeding crew deployment time could be colour-coded another colour (the crew months cell specifically).
Post by: draanyk on November 12, 2012, 09:26:14 PM
The current workaround is to advance turns from the Environment tab of the planets screen and, when we start to get close to the desired amount, start advancing in 5 day periods.
Less micro-managey behaviour would be if in the current turn a planet only needs to add 0.01 atm to finish the order but has terraforming capacity to add 0.8 atm, then it only adds the required 0.01 atm and ignores the remaining capacity.
Post by: Jumpp on November 13, 2012, 09:45:56 AM
Post by: wilddog5 on November 15, 2012, 09:54:51 AM
i very rarly research Gauss cannon velocity beyond 20K and never used CWIS for imperial ships (placed them on civi ships for private enterprise but that no longer applies)
so i was thinking :o that Gauss cannon size for CWIS could decrease per Gauss cannon velocity level on the account that better components are being used, thus encouraging CWIS usage a bit more
Post by: swarm_sadist on November 16, 2012, 10:15:49 AM
I don't think I've seen this idea but given the size of this thread ::) well if it has it has.
I very rarely research Gauss cannon velocity beyond 20K and never used CWIS for imperial ships (placed them on civi ships for private enterprise but that no longer applies)
So i was thinking :o that Gauss cannon size for CWIS could decrease per Gauss cannon velocity level on the account that better components are being used, thus encouraging CWIS usage a bit more
I don't think that has ever been mentioned before. Good catch.
Post by: Nathan_ on November 16, 2012, 08:26:42 PM
Post by: vonduus on November 18, 2012, 11:29:44 AM
On the F3 screen on the left there is a drop-down menu where you can select system view for any known star system.
Suggestion: Is it possible to have a similar drop-down where you can select any fleet (TG) and then the system screen will center on this fleet?
Right now, I go to the TG screen and select my task group, and then from that task group's window I push the button "system map". What I want is a dropdown on the F3 screen that bypasses this and takes me directly to the relevant system, centered on the fleet i chose in the drop-down.
Post by: Conscript Gary on November 22, 2012, 04:58:25 AM
Post by: forgottenlord on November 24, 2012, 10:58:26 AM
Another thing I'd love is to have a conditional order for this: when months deployed exceeds designed deploy time or is at X% of designed deploy time, go to suitable location for R&R.
Post by: Nathan_ on November 26, 2012, 12:48:13 PM
Post by: sloanjh on November 27, 2012, 09:02:22 AM
Not sure if this has come up but a "R&R" order for locations capable of providing such to ships - the ship sits there until the crew months hits 0.
Emphatically seconded.
John
Post by: MehMuffin on November 27, 2012, 09:31:51 PM
Post by: ardem on November 27, 2012, 09:45:59 PM
This might have come up before, but I have a few missile design thing's I'd like to have added. It would be really cool to see secondary and primary warheads and the like, so we could have staggered missile detonations, and ejectable warheads that would maintain momentum, and a few more parameters for stage change. Specifically, I'd like to be able to make it so that my missiles will eject their warheads ahead of them if they are targeted by anything so that either the second stage can detach before it's too late or if we're very close to the target the warheads can simply be separated, so that they lose all guidance but keep going even if the body of the missile is destroyed. Finally, if we could deploy a part of a missile before the rest of it hit, it would be neat, moreover, if a missile could launch a sort of "breaching charge" ahead of it, say a size 4 warhead, that would detonate, and then the main, say size 9, warhead would detonate at the center of its crater to maximize armor penetration .
This is a personal view point not a dismissive of your post. All ideas are valid, but I have some concerns over the logic translation.
The main problem around this game is not modelled on Newtonian, which means these warhead would miss as the spaceships, which zip around without inertia. meaning every warhead would be a miss.
As for the breaching charge since spaceships move so fast and also without inetia, the charges need to be very close together to hit the same spot. But since all warheads are nuclear this would knock out the other missiles, actually the only way I thought salvos would work if all are synced to detonate at the same time.
In a Newtonian game these ideas would be valid and work with the game system however with the current model I don't think my head could wrap around it.
Post by: chrislocke2000 on November 28, 2012, 04:58:49 AM
Perhaps could be done as a fighter engineering deck rather than a hanger deck and then use the normal refit mechanic as per shipyards.
Post by: Person012345 on November 28, 2012, 06:17:29 AM
I am pretty sure it is not so.It is so because of how it's linear. Note he said that the time gained decreases. If you have 1 lab and it will take you 100 days to research a tech, adding 1 lab nets you a 50 day reduction, down to 50 days. Now you have 2 labs working on it and it takes you 50 days to complete. Now, adding another 2 full labs will only get you a reduction of 25 days. Of course, once you get below 5 days (assuming 5 day construction cycle) then adding more labs does nothing.
every technology has a RP cost. every lab generates a flat amount of RP, influenced by research rate tech and scientist bonus. every 5-day the generated RP are substracted from the needed RP. Once RP needed is 0 - you got your tech(+- 5 days).
That doesn't mean it's less efficient though, he's wrong for insinuating that. If you have 4 labs, and 4 projects, each of which takes 1 lab 100 days to complete, you can either spread out the 4 labs, one to each project, in which case the 4 projects will all take 100 days to complete, and will complete at the same time, or you can dump all 4 labs on one project to complete it in 25 days, then do that 3 more times, and all the projects are still completed in 100 days. Or you can give 2 projects 2 labs each and everything will still take 100 days to complete.
Post by: bean on November 28, 2012, 12:41:18 PM
People would rather be defended by a ship with 5 10cm C1 IR lasers and nuke thermal drives than one with 4 10cm C3 UV lasers and, say, ion drives. One easy way to mitigate this problem (and I know that some of the problem is intentional, as the general public doesn't understand warfare all that well) is to add the power requirement to the PPV value. Power requirement is a reasonably accurate indicator of actual beam firepower (except for gauss cannons, but I'm trying to keep this simple and (hopefully) easy to implement). I'm still trying to think of a similar metric for missiles. It would probably be based on rate of fire (time-averaged throw weight?) to aid higher-tech systems some.
Post by: ardem on November 28, 2012, 06:37:57 PM
It is so because of how it's linear. Note he said that the time gained decreases. If you have 1 lab and it will take you 100 days to research a tech, adding 1 lab nets you a 50 day reduction, down to 50 days. Now you have 2 labs working on it and it takes you 50 days to complete. Now, adding another 2 full labs will only get you a reduction of 25 days. Of course, once you get below 5 days (assuming 5 day construction cycle) then adding more labs does nothing.
That doesn't mean it's less efficient though, he's wrong for insinuating that. If you have 4 labs, and 4 projects, each of which takes 1 lab 100 days to complete, you can either spread out the 4 labs, one to each project, in which case the 4 projects will all take 100 days to complete, and will complete at the same time, or you can dump all 4 labs on one project to complete it in 25 days, then do that 3 more times, and all the projects are still completed in 100 days. Or you can give 2 projects 2 labs each and everything will still take 100 days to complete.
This is a good point, perhaps research point should be given on a sliding scale downwards, after say 5 or 10 labs the scale are not as efficient and should not produce as much RP. This makes a lot of sense, sometime research is about time and not matter how much you try and crash a project you can never achieve zero point time frame.
Post by: bean on November 28, 2012, 06:50:15 PM
This is a good point, perhaps research point should be given on a sliding scale downwards, after say 5 or 10 labs the scale are not as efficient and should not produce as much RP. This makes a lot of sense, sometime research is about time and not matter how much you try and crash a project you can never achieve zero point time frame.To a certain extent, this behavior is already modeled by the limits on labs for one scientist. Think of that as the maximum number of labs they can successfully manage. I'd say to leave it, as the gameplay benefits are minimal.
If we're going to introduce that level of complication, then I also feel obliged to point out that it's not simply a matter of diminishing returns. After a certain point, cutting the budget of a research project makes it less efficient as well as slower, and it costs more to do the project than it would have if properly supported.
Post by: Jumpp on November 28, 2012, 11:28:59 PM
Post by: ardem on November 29, 2012, 08:16:02 PM
Post by: Jumpp on November 30, 2012, 02:42:55 AM
This isn't much, but often those outlying colonies don't have a lot. I can, of course, ship them those minerals without much trouble. A click here, a click there...okay, a couple dozen clicks later, it's set up. To move about 130 minerals.
You know what I wish? I wish the guys who'd made those gigantic pre-fab chunks had thought to include the minerals I'm gonna need in a little crate that'd easily fit inside the packaging somewhere, like the tiny little bottle of glue that sometimes comes with furniture that you have to assemble yourself.
So my suggestion: It only adds tedium, and not any gameplay value, to make players manage the assembly minerals. How about instead billing those minerals up front, when the chunks are pre-fabricated, and then letting the assembly run without mineral cost?
Post by: Conscript Gary on November 30, 2012, 06:27:26 AM
Post by: sloanjh on November 30, 2012, 08:33:19 AM
You know what I wish? I wish the guys who'd made those gigantic pre-fab chunks had thought to include the minerals I'm gonna need in a little crate that'd easily fit inside the packaging somewhere, like the tiny little bottle of glue that sometimes comes with furniture that you have to assemble yourself.
So my suggestion: It only adds tedium, and not any gameplay value, to make players manage the assembly minerals. How about instead billing those minerals up front, when the chunks are pre-fabricated, and then letting the assembly run without mineral cost?
Seconded, with the addition that it's probably not worth it to account for the added size of the additional minerals in the shipping requirements.
John
Post by: Paul M on December 01, 2012, 12:38:58 AM
I would also like to see the ranges in the fuel page be correct for the ship in question as it stands those ranges are just plain wrong. But being able to see how far a ship can move with the fuel it has left would help a lot in planning.
Post by: bean on December 01, 2012, 01:54:32 PM
Post by: Traveler on December 04, 2012, 06:47:35 PM
Post by: bean on December 04, 2012, 07:30:59 PM
I think it would be a convenience to be able to select which Task Group orders get removed so that you could be selective. Presently, on the latest order or all orders may be removed.Won't happen. Otherwise, you could remove, say, a JP transit order in the middle of the stack, and leave the game really confused.
Post by: AcidWeb on December 05, 2012, 05:04:41 AM
Moving big amount of mining stations is a pain.
Post by: Erik L on December 05, 2012, 09:35:47 AM
Post by: Erik L on December 05, 2012, 09:40:19 AM
Currently I am playing a 3 player game. All three races are descended from humanity and track the "Old Calendar", but they all have a conventional start. I'd like to be able to set a year for them when they gain Trans-Newton tech, i.e. "Year 1, New Calendar".
So the current date for race 1 may be April 1st 3500 (Old), April 1st, 1 (New); while race 2 may be April 1st 3500 (old) and April 1st 15 (new).
Post by: Erik L on December 05, 2012, 09:55:08 AM
Post by: Traveler on December 05, 2012, 12:07:25 PM
Won't happen. Otherwise, you could remove, say, a JP transit order in the middle of the stack, and leave the game really confused.
I'm sure it could be implemented in such a way that you could be warned against that and not allowed to do it.
Post by: Charlie Beeler on December 05, 2012, 12:18:01 PM
I'm sure it could be implemented in such a way that you could be warned against that and not allowed to do it.
That would require downstream analysis of the subsquent orders that Steve has stated in the past he was unwilling to implement at that time. What it comes down to that it won't happen until he get's "annoyed" enough with the all or nothing approach to change it.
Post by: bean on December 06, 2012, 03:01:29 PM
First, a change in the missile reload speed algorithm. Right now, N size one launchers will deliver N^2 times the number of missiles and N times the total MSP/time as a single size N launcher. I'd like to see the reload/size change from linear to maybe the square root of size, to reduce the dominance of the size 1 missile.
Second, a change in the PD allocation. Right now, if there are multiple salvos stacked together (fired by different ships in the same TG), the PD fire controls preferentially target one of them, which can result in wasted PD potential. It would be nice if it went for the biggest salvo in the stack instead.
Post by: Jumpp on December 07, 2012, 12:44:44 AM
- A notification when your Diplomatic Rating toward an alien race has crossed a threshold that permits new options like allowing trade access, etc.
- A notification when a ship on TF training has reached 100% training.
(It's possible that these both already exist and I just never noticed them. I apologize if that's the case.)
Post by: Jumpp on December 07, 2012, 06:21:26 PM
Post by: Shaitan on December 07, 2012, 09:11:14 PM
It'd be pretty useful to have an indicator somewhere on the Task Group page that shows the total fuel (in liters) being carried by the TG, and the distance that the TG can travel given the amount of fuel it's presently carrying.
I'd second that, I pretty frequently have to open up the fuel status window when I get paranoid and need to double check the set of orders I just issued isn't going to leave my guys stranded in the middle of nowhere waiting for a friendly tanker to get around to topping them up. Would be nice if the information was all in one spot.
Post by: bean on December 09, 2012, 02:38:26 PM
Post by: se5a on December 10, 2012, 01:57:31 PM
an
Unload(everything) order. useful for salvage ships. or those occasional times you're doing misc cargo runs.
slightly harder, but an
Wait: ->
with options for:
crew leave
time (xx:xx:xx from now)
time (until xx:xx:xx specific date)
Edit - actualy I just saw the Order Delay setting, I'm guessing I can do something simular with this? I feel silly now. Still, a wait till crew happy would still be usefull.
another one:
Default Order:
Join with Parent Fleet.
also, allow "Transit and Divide Fleet" to show if "Order Filtering On" == false
(at the moment it doesn't even show up if you do an Absorb first, both would be preferable as a join from another TG would not trigger even if an Absorb allowed it)
the ability to create a list of orders, name and save, then set that list as a default or conditional order would be really nice, but would require a complete overhaul of the orders system I expect.
hell, just give us a scripting language for orders :p
actually, that would be really nice...
Post by: telegraph on December 13, 2012, 06:58:21 AM
Turns take long time to process, so I tend to read something else on my screen. A notification about an interrupt would greatly improve my experience. Thank you.
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on December 14, 2012, 02:40:51 AM
As long as a ship is aware of an active scanning device they would effectively have half their signature.
I think that this would give some additional strategic/tactical depth to the game.
Post by: Task on December 17, 2012, 12:59:31 AM
Have gifted officers be able to be assigned to naval academies to further improve the quality of naval candidates produced by said academy.
I would like a ship component that reduces required crew; maybe something like smart/expert systems, A. I. modules, etc. I really would like one that reduces fighter required crew especially. I refuse to finalize a fighter design that has more than 2 crew, just me, I'm am weird.
I would like the ability to add more ground forces ranks to the rank structure.
I am sure to come up with a few more that most other people would call dumb, but I'm guessing the idea is to just throw ideas out there and get the ball rolling, right?
Post by: Hawkeye on December 17, 2012, 09:58:05 AM
Have gifted officers be able to be assigned to naval academies to further improve the quality of naval candidates produced by said academy.
This smells a lot like WitP-AE´s Tracom :)
Post by: se5a on December 18, 2012, 12:54:38 AM
Could we please have a notification about turn interruption? like a flashing taskbar and/or a sound ping?
Turns take long time to process, so I tend to read something else on my screen. A notification about an interrupt would greatly improve my experience. Thank you.
sort of along these lines:
a way to allow notifications without interrupt.
if the event updates filter window is a winforms dataGridView it should be fairly easy interface wise to add two check-box columns, one for whether to filter it or not, another to interrupt or not - course linking that to the interrupt code may or may not be so trivial, depending on how it's handled.
I like to run on auto at 5 day increments with the event updates window showing, of course there's always interrupts that I may want to view in the event updates, but not actually interrupt. which means setting the Min Inc. ofc that means if there's something REALLY important (like an enemy ship seen or whatever) I'll still get the interrupt, but if it's not important enough to interrupt but I want to view, like.. you know, 'Jump Gate Underway' or 'research complete, research started' I can keep an eye on the event updates, but if it's like. 'Inactive Lab' then it'll interrupt and I can assign the lab.
Post by: Brian Neumann on December 19, 2012, 06:31:56 AM
Hope this makes sense.
Brian
Post by: sloanjh on December 19, 2012, 08:25:26 AM
Would it be possible to set up a sub que for the industry on a planet. I often like to build ship components to make the actual shipbuilding go faster, especially for big ships. What I would like to do is to go into the ship design screen (F5) and have a checkbox next to all of the components used that can be built by industry. Select the ones I want and have this show up on the industry tab as a single line to be built. Once selected they would follow each other in being built. As components are built they would be placed in the stockpiles as now. This way instead of having to select ten different components for a ship individually each time I built that ship I could go ahead and select them as a group.
+1 (Good idea on the checkbox, Brian, to avoid clutter).
I would suggest that the components are all scheduled simultaneously, with amount of industry proportionately divided amongst them according to cost.
John
Post by: Conscript Gary on December 19, 2012, 06:20:14 PM
Post by: jseah on December 20, 2012, 04:38:47 AM
Post by: IanD on December 21, 2012, 10:33:54 AM
Post by: Vordarian on December 24, 2012, 06:24:13 PM
-mothball older ships during peacetime, perhaps saving a percentage of maintenace costs
-tow them out with a tractor beam to use up as target ships
-drifting derelicts?
Post by: swarm_sadist on January 05, 2013, 03:04:17 PM
Post by: devhyfes on January 06, 2013, 10:07:00 PM
A better behavior would be: User clicks the create button, and upon DB insert of the new project, an alert appears with text such as "Design Created! Before this design can be produced, it must be researched at a lab. "
An even better behavior would be to help new users understand where to look for the technology. "A new research project for this design has been created under <tech tree area>. Before it can be produced, it must be researched at a lab. "
An even better (^2) behavior would be to have a button on the dialog that disables this alert ("Don't tell me this again") so that advanced users do not have to put up with this any more.
Also, I don't believe it auto-refreshes the list of available projects to show this new design. . . if not, this would be nice.
I know it isn't a huge change/issue, but it would have saved me an hour or so of troubleshooting.
Post by: CheaterEater on January 07, 2013, 10:39:43 PM
A second suggestion is to add some type of non-specified "tractor ship" order to tugs. A tug fleet could use this on another fleet, where they would tractor as many ships from the other fleet in a non-specific order as they have tractors available. This would make transferring asteroid miners, terraforming bases and fuel harvesting bases much easier as I wouldn't have to specify exactly which one I want tractored for each tug for each trip. This quickly becomes tedious for large fleets and I end up using the SM move option and remove some fuel from my homeworld to compensate.
Post by: Nathan_ on January 10, 2013, 01:13:41 PM
Post by: Nathan_ on January 14, 2013, 03:22:56 PM
Post by: swarm_sadist on January 19, 2013, 10:45:13 AM
Have more types of hangar designs and technologies. Right now there are boat bays and hangars, which allow 250t and 1000t to be stored, launched, recovered, armed and maintained inside the ship. There is no launch time, or launch rate; all fighters can be launched in an instant. There is also no recovery rate at which fighters can be recovered. All fighters can be armed at the exact same time, all fighters are maintained and refuelled, and all fighters are stored in a way that requires no management.
If these are changed somewhat, you could have it so that a certain type of hanger is capable of storing fighters with very little weight, but lacks a function above. For instance, modern carriers have internal hangars to stored munitions and fighters not in active use to save space. These fighters cannot be launched quickly, but they can be stored efficiently and maintained inside a protected space. A special type of hangar space could easily be implemented in Aurora. This hanger could have a storage capacity of 1000t while only weighing 250t, but would require the player to move fighters to a launch hanger before they could be used.
Likewise, a hangar could have a limited amount of launches at once. A modern aircraft carrier has a limit of one launch every 30 seconds per catapult, with a trained crew. A crew grading for pilots could also determine how long it takes for the crew to reach their fighters, and for the inactive crew members to reach the hangar during emergencies.
Post by: jseah on January 19, 2013, 09:24:30 PM
This hanger could have a storage capacity of 1000t while only weighing 250t, but would require the player to move fighters to a launch hanger before they could be used.I may like to mention that this makes no sense. The hangar may weigh only 250t, but the fighters in it weigh 1000t.
Post by: Execrated1 on January 19, 2013, 10:18:11 PM
And let me add that, after thinking about it, I agree with you. Carrier mechanics could be re-worked to provide some very interesting tactical elements. Imagine if you had to worry that a well aimed, or just plain lucky, attack could penetrate your carrier through the launch deck. You'd then have to decide when and how to launch the compliment of fighters. Also, if there was a delay to launching and retrieving ships, you might want to keep your carrier behind a screen of smaller ships to give it the time to do so. Or you might want to have a number of fighters disembarked at all times. Then you'd have to handle the logistics of a number of small craft needing to be refueled and resupplied while in flight.
Post by: jseah on January 20, 2013, 01:04:17 AM
Post by: sloanjh on January 20, 2013, 10:53:03 AM
1) Exterior ("XO") hanger: This is the equivalent of the current hanger, i.e. allows instant launch. The drawback is that it's outside the armor (i.e. there's just a big gaping hole to make the door), so one would two armor patterns - an "armored" pattern that has rows and columns for (ship mass - XO capacity) and a "total" pattern that has the rows and columns for ship mass (i.e. the current pattern). Any armor box that is in the total pattern but not in the armored pattern is treated as a hit on the parasites (statistically distributed, so if there are no parasites it immediately penetrates). In other words, this hanger is very similar to SF XO racks. (Which brings up an intersting point - should box launchers fall into the same category of being outside the armor?). The hanger system itself (the 50 tons) would still be inside the armor. You might want to also think about having an efficiency penalty for reloads etc for parasites in external hangars. The reason this type is "necessary" is for bolshoi parasites, where the carrier is mostly intended to act as a floating dry dock for maintenance/repair purposes.
2) Interior hanger: Works the same as the current one, except doesn't allow ANY launches. In other words, it's acting like a missile magazine does not in Aurora. Hits on this guys should be randomly distributed between the hanger itself (the 50 tons) and the ships inside it. Note that this latter condition means that parasites might be able to survive destruction of the mother ship (albeit with potential damage) if direct fire or the explosion of the mother ship didn't kill them.
3) Launch tubes: These allow ships of a max size to launch/recover with a recycle rate. In other words they're very similar to missile launchers. Note that the max launch tube size is a limit on the max size of a parasite in internal storage.
In other words, I think the idea boils down to unifying launch mechanisms for parasites and missiles, both from a magazine/launcher point of view and from the way XO racks are treated (which I actually didn't realize until the middle of typing this up). Note that from the missile side, this means that missiles in XO racks get hit first, so you'd better have flushed them before taking damage otherwise you run the risks of secondary explosions (albeit outside the armor).
John
Post by: Execrated1 on January 20, 2013, 12:16:44 PM
- Internal hangar space designed to store, repair, reload and maintain parasite crafts.
- A "lift" system that grabs the parasite, and then rotates it to the exterior of the carrier.
- A hangar door that can be opened to receive returning parasites.
This would give you the ability to also open the hangar door to quickly release a higher number of fighters at a greater risk of an enemy attack penetrating the ship. We could also have to design hangars as we do missile magazines. You'd decide upon the space for parasites, the number of "lifts" to move them to the exterior, the armor plating, the size of the hangar bay doors. And maybe we could add magazine and crew spaces to make launching and reloading faster.
Post by: MagusXIX on January 20, 2013, 12:57:13 PM
Post by: Narmio on January 21, 2013, 08:58:53 PM
I'm always in favour of complexity that adds additional strategic and tactical options (otherwise why would I be in this little corner of the Internet? :)), but not just complexity for the sake of it...
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on January 22, 2013, 05:11:15 AM
We also have reload time of fighters that numbers in maybe half an hour or less depending on bonuses. If you added a few minutes here and there for boarding and relaunch it will actually matter in allot of circumstances. If it takes a fighter 60sek to launch and 90sek to land that is 2.5min for one fighter. If you want to launch a wing of five fighters and you only designed the carrier wit one launch bay for fighters of that size you just added an additional twelve minutes to the reload time of the squadron.
So (in my opinion) some change could benefit the game except more complexity. I really don't think it would be very much complexity either. I thin most people would think of it as quite intuitive that there is cap on size of a parasite and that it takes to time launch and land fighter crafts on a carrier.
Post by: chrislocke2000 on January 22, 2013, 06:56:38 AM
I've certainly had plently of engagements where the speed of reloading fighters has been important such that increased time for recovery and launch would have an impact of tactics used. I've also had a few encounters with facs and other ships getting very close to my carriers before being detected in which case launch times would have been a factor. They would also be very important for the use of carrier type vehicles in any warp point offensive or defensive actions.
Post by: sloanjh on January 22, 2013, 09:00:30 AM
So I guess that the unification would imply two kinds of "launch everything at once": "XO" (where things are stored outside the armor, equivalent to a Harpoon or Sea Sparrow box launcher) and "Box" (the current highest launcher tech (inside the armor), equivalent to USN VLS).
A strategic game change would be to decide to go with XO or internal launchers (more protected but bigger and potentially lower ROF). If using XO racks (which I suspect most would before box launcher tech was available) then you've got a tactical risk if you decide not to shoot yourself dry before the enemy has an opportunity to damage you. They would also make an opposed transit by missile ships much more interesting :)
John
Post by: Execrated1 on January 22, 2013, 01:54:07 PM
Currently we have carriers akin to those found in Starcraft. They launch a bunch of smaller craft instantly, that then fly around and shoot things. They come in for a reload, which can be done simultaneously, and then go out again immediately. With the mechanics I suggested you would be limited by the size of the hangar, the speed you could launch and resupply them, how many you could launch at once, and how you wanted to recover them. You might decide to have a hangar that can house 20 fighters, with a magazine to give them 2 reloads each, but only be able to launch 2 at a time. I could decide to have a hangar that can house 10 fighters, with only 1 reload each, but I can launch them 5 at a time. If we come across each other and neither of us has any fighters deployed, I'd have 10 fighters out in the time you had 4. There could be a number of design options. Overall size, lift capacity, hangar door size and armor, and crew quarters. It would mean you had to choose how to handle the fighters. Their ranges might be large, as they should be, but they aren't limitless and their magazines tiny. You'd have to reload and resupply them, and you'd have to choose how. Do you do it all at once, in stages, or do you keep your fighters in reserve until the enemy is weakened. Of course, exactly how it would effect strategy can't be known unless it's tried. If it didn't make things more tactical, we could always suggest it be removed lol.
Post by: swarm_sadist on January 23, 2013, 10:26:14 PM
I hate to be the devil's advocate here, because customizable hangars sound really cool, but what opportunities for strategic variation would they actually provide? Current fighter combat engagement times and ranges are so long that I can't see how even quite large delays between launches would influence them.
I'm always in favour of complexity that adds additional strategic and tactical options (otherwise why would I be in this little corner of the Internet? :)), but not just complexity for the sake of it...
I would just like to point out that a modern carrier stores most of it's CAG inside it's hangars to reduce the wear and tear on them, store them more efficiently and helps reduce the overhead cost and time of MRO actions.
I would also like to point out that not all carrier forces are on full combat readiness all the time. While a carrier or destroyer can launch a fighter/helicopter within 30-60 seconds, it can take 30-45 minutes to launch a helicopter from cold storage. It takes time to refuel, rearm and check over. The readiness of a squadron could be reduced to improve maintenance or to reduce crew fatigue from constant alert status, at the cost of drastically increasing launch time. A B-52 squadron could take hours or days to get to combat readiness.
The strategic considerations are quite obvious as well. Would you prefer an air tender to refuel and rearm patrol craft? Or would you rather prefer advanced fleet carriers that can launch and recover hundreds of fighters? Or maybe just a shuttle attached to a destroyer analog?
Post by: Conscript Gary on January 23, 2013, 11:21:38 PM
Post by: crys on January 24, 2013, 11:56:11 AM
Post by: swarm_sadist on January 24, 2013, 07:35:25 PM
maybe the hangars are more like thouse in Battlestar Galactica - with lots of launch tubes - or external hangers like the base stars
Battlestar Galactica is a good reference for most people when it comes to star carriers. It also allows us to examine the many different ways a carrier can be designed.
External hangars that are partially protected from damage, but are exposed to space, that can store very large ships inside it. It can also launch and recover fighters and other craft, although at a fairly slow rate. It is basically like a giant landing strip. Like old WW2 carriers in the pacific, I can picture an assault being prepared by moving all craft onto the external hangars to launch all at once.
Launch tubes are used to quickly launch Vipers, and only Vipers, when an enemy is detected. It requires fast launch of as many fighters as possible in as short of time as possible. It cannot recover Vipers, nor can it launch anything larger than a fighter. It also cannot store fighters for long periods of time.
Internal hangars used to store, maintain and service fighters, scout craft and their munitions. They cannot recover or launch craft, but they can move the craft via elevators and power tugs into the other hangars for launch. Most of the space is empty to allow for easy movement and maintenance.
Compare that to the Star Destroyer from Star Wars:
It has internal hangars that store it's Tie Fighters in very efficient storage racks. They cannot launch from here, but they can be boarded and moved via internal rails to the launch hangar. Each rack may only house Tie Variants small enough to fit; a fighter rack cannot hold bombers, but a bomber rack could hold fighters and bombers. It has a separate hangar space for shuttles and such, attached to the external hangar via a big door.
The launch hangars are capable of storing fighters, bombers, shuttles and even several corvette sized ships. The launch hangars can both launch and recover Tie fighters, although cannot launch fighters as fast or in as many numbers. While a Viper could just skid onto the deck, a Tie fighter has no landing gear and must be guided into the racks, thus slowing recovery time.
In summary:
-The Colonial Battlestar and the Imperial Star Destroyer are both capable of launching and recovering hundreds of fighters and bombers during a battle, although the Battlestar is far faster at both.
-Both have internal storage capable of storing a large amount of munitions, spare craft and maintenance facilities. While the ISD can store many more craft than the CBS, it can only store Tie Variants in their dedicated racks.
-Both ships can use their main external hangars to recover large ships.
-Both ships have armoured external hangars, although the CBS hangar is a much easier target to hit.
-Recovered craft on CBS requires the craft being dragged to the elevator for transfer (when during a combat landing) or must land directly on an elevator. ISD Tie Fighters dock directly to their rack, allowing instant transfer to the internal hangar if need be.
-ISD hangars are pressurized with atmosphere, CBS are vacuum.
There are so many other types of carrier designs out there in both RL and works of fiction. Speculative literature is always a good place to look for inspiration to steal.
Post by: CheaterEater on January 28, 2013, 04:42:33 PM
Give us tech to improve the support functions of ships like engineering, life support and bridges. These are fairly common items where reduced sizes/increased efficiencies would help out. Most other items can be teched up for improved efficiency (industrial modules, engines, etc.) so it's a bit odd that these are left out. I purposefully left out fuel storage as we already have the increased fuel efficiency tech which serves much the same purpose, but it could certainly use it too with the new fuel consumption rules.
Second, have ships moving at a reduced speed burn fuel more efficiently. Currently giving my escorts a greater speed with a larger power boost is a bit of a waste if they're normally traveling at the slower fleet speed. If you averaged (or did something similar) between necessary versus max power it would greatly improve fuel efficiency on high-boost engines that are used only occasionally at max speed. It would also allow more "patrol" type ships that run more slowly while deployed but can boost to high combat speeds when necessary at a cost in overall fuel efficiency. As an example, a x2.5 power engine uses x9.88 more fuel (than a x1 boost engine). If you had the ship run as half speed it only needs a x1.25 power boost for x1.75 as much fuel consumption. An average then would give you x5.815 as much fuel per engine power hour, a very large increase in fuel economy. A x1.2 boost engine (x1.58 fuel) running at half speed for x0.6 boost (x0.28 fuel) would give a fuel efficiency of x0.93, not nearly as large of a difference. The speed would also tend to be rather slow when using a low-boost engine in the first place, making half speed much slower. It's interesting to note that a very high-boost engine can't get even close to the fuel consumption of a low-boost engine no matter how slow it goes; even if you take a x2.5 boost engine down to, say, 0.2 boost (we'll assume 0 for the consumption), the fuel requirement is still x4.94. Overall this would help high-boost engines that go at moderately slower speeds the most which is where it's needed most.
Post by: wilddog5 on January 30, 2013, 07:22:34 AM
while reading elseware i discovered that every time a computer does a square root calculation it performs a calculation like the one below 16 times in order to get the most accurate answer
new_x = (1/2)(x + a/x), (a = number we want take square root of)
This converges very fast, e.g. a=2, and we start with x=2 :
x = 0.5 ( 2 + 2/2 ) = 1.5
x = 0.5 (1.5 + 2 / 1.5 ) = 1.41666666
x = 0.5 (1.4166666 + 2 / 1.416666666 ) = 1.4142157
After three calculations x is already accurate for sqrt(a) = sqrt(2) up to 6 digits !
given that in aura their is a lot of square roots in it's math it might be more efficient to proform the calculation manually and loop it 2-4 times depending on the accuracy necessary (ie sensor distance robably does not Need to be done so much as it will probably be rounded as an integer anyway) this could speed up aurora a great deal
Post by: Charlie Beeler on January 30, 2013, 08:24:58 AM
possible optimization
while reading elseware i discovered that every time a computer does a square root calculation it performs a calculation like the one below 16 times in order to get the most accurate answer
new_x = (1/2)(x + a/x), (a = number we want take square root of)
This converges very fast, e.g. a=2, and we start with x=2 :
x = 0.5 ( 2 + 2/2 ) = 1.5
x = 0.5 (1.5 + 2 / 1.5 ) = 1.41666666
x = 0.5 (1.4166666 + 2 / 1.416666666 ) = 1.4142157
After three calculations x is already accurate for sqrt(a) = sqrt(2) up to 6 digits !
given that in aura their is a lot of square roots in it's math it might be more efficient to proform the calculation manually and loop it 2-4 times depending on the accuracy necessary (ie sensor distance robably does not Need to be done so much as it will probably be rounded as an integer anyway) this could speed up aurora a great deal
Actually, to speed up processing manual calculation is very slow in VB. By contrast setting up function calls to assembler routines is segnificantly faster. Of this I'm sure Steve is already aware.
Post by: Maltay on February 03, 2013, 08:53:19 AM
Rationale: Increased ability to role play situations in multi-faction starts where a faction is given assistance, discovers alien ruins, etc. that increase their industrial or wealth efficiency. This could alternatively be done with existing research capabilities, but it would make future industrial or wealth efficiency research disproportionately expensive for the faction in question. This tends to mess up multi-faction starts as it slants the playing field in an unsatisfactory fashion.
Post by: viperfan7 on February 09, 2013, 12:32:30 PM
Post by: viperfan7 on February 11, 2013, 12:37:56 PM
I would really like to see something like the culture system of sins of a solar empire, minus the taking over a system with culture only.
it could be a system where the rate of spread depends on the distance, and there is a constant inwards spread, so say that coming from your home system, outward spread is 10, while inward spread for the game is 2, it would spread out at a rate of 8, as it spreads further and further from populated systems, it gets weaker and weaker, untill outward spread is equal to inward spread and it just stops, this way you have unclaimed space, can push back the boarders of NPRs just by having ships nearby, but they can do the same, of course there would have to be a way to determine distance between systems, and each system would have to reach a certain amount of border strength before it starts spreading from there, like an overflowing bucket.
This allows for border disputes and that ships near your border will make you want to take action, as they will be pushing your border back and other cool things like that. I just dont know what kind of limitations going outside your border would have, maybe unable to colonize, or a constant increase in the unrest of populated planets the further away from your borders it is.
The rate of expansion could be controlled by empire wide protection level with the skill level of your officer assigned to whatever uses the diplomacy bonus, as well as a new research.
Post by: swarm_sadist on March 05, 2013, 07:02:27 PM
Please create an AI smart enough to kill all armchair generals on this forum without cheating, numerical or technological superiority.
Thank you.
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on July 20, 2013, 07:05:41 AM
I think that it would be good if such technologies either scaled with the number of facilities or that you have to actually update each facility to the new level and spend some resources on it (in an automatic way), such as having a modernization option for each facility as an option for you industry. Either way is good but actually having to upgrade facilities are more realistic and would make smaller empires more competitive.
I would also like for industry to be more efficient at building something the more it spends time on one type of item, up to a maximum point. There could be a gearing period for several years to reach the peak but it should yield perhaps three times the efficiency. Every time you change the % up/down of one thing part of this efficiency will be lost based on how large the change is.
This should also be true for laboratories. Swapping laboratories between different fields should yield lower research efficiencies and longer research in the same field should improve efficiencies in that field.
I also think that there should be some penalties for large sprawling empires with increased bureaucracy costs. I wouldn't mind a remodel of the entire imperial model to be slightly more realistic with morale and planetary elections and demands aside from military protection. This would create a more dynamic world and help role-playing as well. Sure, you can role-play rebellions and planets wanting more freedom and such, but forcing to deal with it is fun too (in my opinion).
Post by: Whitecold on July 25, 2013, 08:20:42 AM
Given the you still build each ship individually I see each ship as a new project, not an assembly line that specializes in building a particular ship type.
So my suggestion is to replace the retooling by a research project, similar to designed components. The total research cost would be based on build costs. Locking the design would add the project, and once researched it could be built in any yard of sufficient capacity and of the right type.
For refits the research costs could use the refit costs if there is an already researched design which is eligible under the current 20% cost difference refit rule.
Post by: Bgreman on July 25, 2013, 12:50:50 PM
The entire retooling system of the Shipyards does not make much sense to me. I always wonder where all my precious resources go in retooling those yards.
Given the you still build each ship individually I see each ship as a new project, not an assembly line that specializes in building a particular ship type.
So my suggestion is to replace the retooling by a research project, similar to designed components. The total research cost would be based on build costs. Locking the design would add the project, and once researched it could be built in any yard of sufficient capacity and of the right type.
For refits the research costs could use the refit costs if there is an already researched design which is eligible under the current 20% cost difference refit rule.
I always imagine the resources go into new jigs / machinery specific to producing ships of the new type, as well as education/training of the yard personnel on how the new type will be constructed.
Post by: sloanjh on July 25, 2013, 10:07:20 PM
I always imagine the resources go into new jigs / machinery specific to producing ships of the new type, as well as education/training of the yard personnel on how the new type will be constructed.
My recollection is that this was Steve's thought process when he introduced it.
John
Post by: Saibot on July 26, 2013, 07:06:30 AM
The entire retooling system of the Shipyards does not make much sense to me. I always wonder where all my precious resources go in retooling those yards.
Given the you still build each ship individually I see each ship as a new project, not an assembly line that specializes in building a particular ship type.
So my suggestion is to replace the retooling by a research project, similar to designed components. The total research cost would be based on build costs. Locking the design would add the project, and once researched it could be built in any yard of sufficient capacity and of the right type.
For refits the research costs could use the refit costs if there is an already researched design which is eligible under the current 20% cost difference refit rule.
I kind of agree with this one. The idea that every wrench, welding gun, robot arm, and whatever else is used to make a ship needs to be modified or replaced to make a slightly different ship makes less sense than having a research team draw up schematics and send them to all yards.
Post by: joeclark77 on July 26, 2013, 08:31:00 AM
I kind of agree with this one. The idea that every wrench, welding gun, robot arm, and whatever else is used to make a ship needs to be modified or replaced to make a slightly different ship makes less sense than having a research team draw up schematics and send them to all yards.I disagree. I think retooling is something that real shipyards do. In manufacturing, retooling an assembly line is necessary to get the efficiencies of scale you expect with mass production.
A compromise might be that you could build a "prototype" of a new class without retooling the shipyard, but it would cost 150% of the price or something. So, for anything that you only need one of, that might be a valid option. For things you will build large numbers of, like freighters, you will want to retool the shipyard to produce them efficiently.
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on July 26, 2013, 11:43:31 AM
But I would still agree that ships would need to be researched as a whole as well as the individual parts. I would totally support that idea. This would also make large specialized ship less interesting to make since needing research into two large expansive ships will be daunting. While smaller changes on a large ship will actually be cheaper that ripping out large parts of a small ship into a new version.
This would increase the realism on ship design and construction. Small ships will be easier to prototype/research but less efficient in the long run. Much like it is in reality.
I wouldn't mind that yards could get some gearing bonuses if they build something in series for a very long time.
Post by: alex_brunius on July 26, 2013, 02:38:34 PM
The entire retooling system of the Shipyards does not make much sense to me. I always wonder where all my precious resources go in retooling those yards.There is still always an upfront cost for tools to be able to build ship specific parts.
Given the you still build each ship individually I see each ship as a new project, not an assembly line that specializes in building a particular ship type.
Many of the bulkheads, fastenings and generic corridors will have to be tailored for a specific ship model and designing tools and assembly process for these is expensive.
There is also the cost of (small scale) prototypes and testing that's a one time cost before a design is validated and approved for construction.
Post by: Whitecold on July 26, 2013, 02:55:14 PM
Quote from: alex_brunius link=topic=2828. msg64490#msg64490 date=1374867514
There is still always an upfront cost for tools to be able to build ship specific parts.
Many of the bulkheads, fastenings and generic corridors will have to be tailored for a specific ship model and designing tools and assembly process for these is expensive.
There is also the cost of (small scale) prototypes and testing that's a one time cost before a design is validated and approved for construction.
These are all prototyping costs, once the ship is designed, every yard should be able to use the knowledge gained.
One point I forgot to mention of what seems illogical to me is that shipyards are only able to build one type of ships (or more, if you manage to squeeze the refit cost low enough), a large yard should be multifunctional instead of building massive overcapacities for something like a single gate construction ship, because you'd need to retool a yard for it, and the retool it back, as you want more of the class it originally built.
Post by: Thundercraft on July 29, 2013, 07:33:39 PM
[snip] ... 2. Power. We're running into a real life energy crisis currently, yet so far no 4x game has wasted any thoughts on power. Make power a resource and you will have immediate benefits in terms of complexity all over the board: More installations that must be built, one more factor to balance, and more stuff to research. Might even be coupled with special resources for advanced powerplants.
This is from like 3 years ago. (I haven't played older versions of Aurora.) Though, I think this is still a good suggestion.
That said, you were not entirely accurate in saying "so far no 4x game has wasted any thoughts on power." But you probably aren't aware of a really old indie 4x game by the name of "Xpace (http://xpace.awardspace.com/)", especially since the company ended before it could finish a commercial version - releasing an alpha-stage version to the public with an unfinished AI for computer opponents. Xpace put a lot of thought into power management, both in terms of ships and stations and with planets and construction. On each new game the player is faced with choosing power-hungry jump engines with instant (1 turn) travel, or energy-efficient thrust engines that take a while to get there. Power is very important in Xpace. One can even substitute some of the rare Trans-Newtonian elements with energy by "synthesizing" them - albeit at massive energy costs.
Post by: Steve Walmsley on August 03, 2013, 05:31:24 AM
Dear Steve,
Please create an AI smart enough to kill all armchair generals on this forum without cheating, numerical or technological superiority.
Thank you.
I'll get started on that right away :)
I know the AI isn't great and I do need to spend some more time on it. Its just finding the time at the moment
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on August 03, 2013, 05:39:40 AM
Idea for political borders.
I would really like to see something like the culture system of sins of a solar empire, minus the taking over a system with culture only.
it could be a system where the rate of spread depends on the distance, and there is a constant inwards spread, so say that coming from your home system, outward spread is 10, while inward spread for the game is 2, it would spread out at a rate of 8, as it spreads further and further from populated systems, it gets weaker and weaker, untill outward spread is equal to inward spread and it just stops, this way you have unclaimed space, can push back the boarders of NPRs just by having ships nearby, but they can do the same, of course there would have to be a way to determine distance between systems, and each system would have to reach a certain amount of border strength before it starts spreading from there, like an overflowing bucket.
This allows for border disputes and that ships near your border will make you want to take action, as they will be pushing your border back and other cool things like that. I just dont know what kind of limitations going outside your border would have, maybe unable to colonize, or a constant increase in the unrest of populated planets the further away from your borders it is.
The rate of expansion could be controlled by empire wide protection level with the skill level of your officer assigned to whatever uses the diplomacy bonus, as well as a new research.
I would like to have something along the lines or borders, or perhaps exclusion zones within systems. The main problem is to come up with something that the AI can deal with sensibly.
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on August 03, 2013, 06:11:44 AM
One thing that I have thought about about the balance of small versus large empires are how research is linear and don't scale well with the size of an empire. A huge empire can put as much wealth and labs into developing their industry, ship construction, mining rates as a small empire. This bonus is immediately available to all such facilities.
I think that it would be good if such technologies either scaled with the number of facilities or that you have to actually update each facility to the new level and spend some resources on it (in an automatic way), such as having a modernization option for each facility as an option for you industry. Either way is good but actually having to upgrade facilities are more realistic and would make smaller empires more competitive.
Upgrading each facility individually probably isn't workable, partly due to record keeping and partly due to micromanagement but mainly due to the difficulties of displaying the information if you potentially have several different versions of each type of industrial facility.
A difference in research cost might be an option, although it would probably lead to a gameplay style of researching nothing but construction tech for a while before building any new facilities.
A third option might be that instead of instantly updating all the factories to the new production level, it is more of a gradual process over time. So when you update construction rate from 12 to 14 for example, it would increase to 12.1 and then a few days later to 12.2, etc. until it reached 14. Taking this a step further, the rate at which the updating takes place could be related to some type of percentage-based empire-wide reduction in production capacity, so that larger Empires effectively have a larger absolute penalty for the same upgrade rate. If you are prepared to accept a higher penalty, the upgrade happens more quickly. This achieves what you are looking for, plus it adds a meaningful player decision to the upgrade process. In effect, Empires would have a theoretical max production rate and an actual production rate that could be upgraded via a temporary reduction in capacity as the factories upgraded themselves.
Steve
Post by: Thundercraft on August 03, 2013, 05:18:09 PM
In the (abandoned, never finished) Xpace (http://xpace.awardspace.com/) game researched technologies are not automatically applied empire-wide - across entire star systems - instantly. Rather, it's only possible to transfer the ability to use them in the form of a physical "Technology Kit" that has to be built and transferred to certain facilities. Per the game's help file:
Quote
Technology Kits are the means by which the various technologies are built into new ships or facilities, and how technology is transferred throughout an empire. The following rules are all-important to understanding what technology kits do and what you should do with them:
1. In order for a design center to build a given technology into another ship, it must possess the appropriate technology kit. So, if a design center sets out to design a new warship configuration with level 5 lasers, it must possess a Level 5 Laser Tech-Kit.
2. The same rule applies to construction facilities and building other ships or facilities. They must possess the technology kits necessary to build a ship or design of a given configuration.
3. Every player starts the game with their key design centers and construction facility containing all the necessary technology kits. Through research, a player can add new technology kits or technology kits of increased tech-level.
The advancement and distribution of new technology throughout an empire could be a task in and of itself (fortunately the game provides ways of making this easy). Note that, if a given technology is lost altogether (the last kit of its kind is lost or destroyed), it can only be replaced through additional research.
It should be clear that the physical location of research facilities, design centers and construction facilities is one key strategic element of the game. Scattered too far apart, and transfer of technology can become difficult. Placed too close together, and you present your opponents with an opportunity to wipe out key, strategic parts of your empire.
For clarification, a technology kit is simply the abstract representation of knowledge, experience, equipment and anything else required to use a given technology. Thus, transferring technology kits is effectively the same as transferring personnel, equipment or related things required for that technology. Building technology kits is the same as training new personnel, manufacturing new equipment, etc.
Similarly, when you have a "design center" design a new ship or facility, you still need to copy and physically transfer the "configuration" or blueprints for the design to shipyards or other locations to actually build them. You shouldn't be able to instantly build a newly designed engine or defense base - empire-wide - after the design is finished.
These requirements can slow down the spread of new technology and new designs, especially in large empires. I think it's much more believable than a system where one can instantly utilize and build such. Even in a universe where communication is faster-than-light, the transfer should not be instant. Also, why broadcast such highly sensitive information throughout your empire using FTL communication? It's too risky that aliens or enemies would be able to intercept and decode it! Transferring physical documents and materials is much safer. And Technology Kits are a lot more than just the abstract knowledge. It's vital personnel and materials, too. One would probably need special tools and materials and knowledgeable experts to utilize a brand new technology or design.
Also, by requiring all designs and most (if not all) technologies to be physically transferred via "Blueprints" and "Tech Kits", this allows such to be inadvertently captured. It should be a rare event, but players could capture alien designs and technologies this way - and your enemies could do, likewise.
Yes, it would require more micromanagement. But there should be a way to make this somewhat automated - or at least organized in a way to keep track of it. And it would require major code changes. But isn't it doable?
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on August 04, 2013, 06:41:42 AM
A third option might be that instead of instantly updating all the factories to the new production level, it is more of a gradual process over time. So when you update construction rate from 12 to 14 for example, it would increase to 12.1 and then a few days later to 12.2, etc. until it reached 14. Taking this a step further, the rate at which the updating takes place could be related to some type of percentage-based empire-wide reduction in production capacity, so that larger Empires effectively have a larger absolute penalty for the same upgrade rate. If you are prepared to accept a higher penalty, the upgrade happens more quickly. This achieves what you are looking for, plus it adds a meaningful player decision to the upgrade process. In effect, Empires would have a theoretical max production rate and an actual production rate that could be upgraded via a temporary reduction in capacity as the factories upgraded themselves.
This sounds pretty good and simple enough in my opinion. It would simulate the cost of upgrading industry.
I hope that the same method could also be applied to labs, mines and shipyards. Shipyards could perhaps be upgraded whenever they retool to a new design, that could be interesting.
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on September 15, 2013, 07:01:26 AM
It is currently impossible to set up patrol zones for scout ships or have your commercial ships rest their crew for a while at inhabited worlds (for role-play reasons) before they continue on with their missions.
I would really like to have this so I can use patrol zones for smaller patrol/scout vessels. I currently is more or less impossible to use ships to patrol trafficked routes without this control to have you ships rest and wait in certain points in their routes.
Why not have a patrol order which make ships patrol along civilian ship lanes automatically or randomly between selected way-points. They would also go to an inhabited planets to rest the crew when needed without player input
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on September 15, 2013, 07:15:01 AM
Let's say that you pay about half (or perhaps even less) than what you would pay for the resources you otherwise would have to pay for these ships. This would actually give you a small incentive to upgrade your commercial ships other than for role-play reasons.
I would also like if ships maintenance cost increased with time since the core of the ships construction will start to wear out over time. There should be an internal clock started when a ship is first constructed and then maintenance cost should slowly rise with time, more slowly in the beginning and then faster the older it gets, much like how regular maintenance work now but more permanent. This means that ships maintenance cycle would reduce over time. So, a ship might have a maintenance cycle of 5 years when constructed but after 50 years in service (after several upgrades) it has a maintenance cycle of 2.5 years (if it kept the same engineering module rating).
I also think that the larger a ship is the more efficient both crew and engineering spaces should be in general. The more crew a ship has the more efficient it is with cross training, redundancy etc..
Post by: Erik L on September 15, 2013, 08:06:20 AM
I would also like for ships flagged as commercial to impact your wealth as a means to reflect that they will need maintenance but not actually cost you any resources since it is your civilian population that take care of actual maintenance of these ships.
Let's say that you pay about half (or perhaps even less) than what you would pay for the resources you otherwise would have to pay for these ships. This would actually give you a small incentive to upgrade your commercial ships other than for role-play reasons.
Do you mean civilian rated ships you build or ships that the civilian companies build?
Post by: MarcAFK on September 15, 2013, 08:15:58 AM
Perhaps whenever the ship goes in for maintenance the required msp to repair any component is increased by some percentage, say 100% rewind of clock increases the repair cost/failure rate of each component by 20%, this way a ship kept in service for a long time would get increasingly shorter maintenance time, but when the ship gets refit ideally the increased failure rate of each component is kept, but any new or changed components would have a smaller failure rate since they're brand new.
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on September 15, 2013, 10:08:03 AM
Do you mean civilian rated ships you build or ships that the civilian companies build?
I mean those that are rated as comercial and built by the player. Civilian companies will already replace ships.
There are a few incentives in the current model but I really think a simple mechanic such as a yearly cost for commersial ships on your wealth would give one more incentive toreplace them eventually.
Post by: Hazard on September 20, 2013, 11:01:08 AM
Adjusting the hydrosphere could be either a job for terraforming facilities or a dedicated facility in and off itself, although if it's a job of the terraformers it should probably take a lot more effort than the atmosphere, given that Earth's hydrosphere weighs in at about 300 times the mass of the atmosphere.
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on September 20, 2013, 01:48:44 PM
I think that all worlds should perhaps require some infrastructure to be built on them when the population reach a certain point. Perhaps 1.0 should be the lowest number for any world and then higher the more the world differ from the sweet spot.
It might also be good if terraform facilities and ships would have a diminishing effect after a certain number is deployed, again depending on the size of the planet. So you should be able to terraform a big planet as fast as a smaller one, it just would take more terraform facilities to do so.
The same principle apply to mining facilities as well.
I feel that the only reason I ever diversify and colonize many different planets and mining colonies are for role-play purposes. It would be nice if the game actually gave realistic incentives to spread out more. The mechanics in many instances are a little too linear.
If you just game the game you concentrate in a few places at a time and mine them to death and move to the next planet with the highest availability of the minerals you need. It is also more profitable to move all excess population to earth and just leave perhaps 50-150 million on all other worlds, most of the time anyway.
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on November 14, 2013, 07:06:33 AM
This is especially critical when it comes to ground based listening stations. These are quite easy to build and automatically upgrade and their range increase linear which don't make much sense.
I would like to see this on ship sensors and fire-controls as well. It would make spreading out a fleet more important in order to patrol areas, as are establishing ground bases in many places within a system.
It does not have to be an exact measure of diminishing strength due to range and space ratio, but in some way reflect the increased area a scanner has to find things based on range would make things more interesting. At least I think so.
I currently restrict the size of active sensors and level of ground stations to a certain amount or size. I would like it if that was not necessary.
Post by: swarm_sadist on November 17, 2013, 04:39:32 PM
I just finished a game where the enemy decided to bomb it's own capital to bits to remove my forces (both our capitals were on the same planet). Just having the ability to resist minor missile strikes without meson PDCs built up on the planet would be nice.
Post by: MarcAFK on November 17, 2013, 08:52:23 PM
Post by: swarm_sadist on November 18, 2013, 07:39:11 PM
...however I'm sure such shielding should consume copious amounts of fuel due to the size of a planetary shield...
It doesn't have to cover the entire planet, just the manufacturing centres. IE: Cities and military bases.
Even an imperfect shield like in master's of orion, which simply reduces the amount of hits that damage civilian structures by creating a huge 'stack' of high HTK shield facilities.
There just needs to be some tech, building or unit capable of mitigating the damage of orbital fire.
Post by: alex_brunius on November 19, 2013, 04:08:02 AM
It doesn't have to cover the entire planet, just the manufacturing centres. IE: Cities and military bases.
Here I see a balancing problem with planetary shields though. Should the same cost shield really be able to cover your entire imperial capital with billions of population and tens of thousands of facilities compared to a shield for simple DSTS in a small outpost?
This feature would need to include a way to determine how much space whatever your protecting takes up on a body.
If you need to go that far to make it accurate we might aswell also throw in underground / armor on all facilities as another option to protect from bombardment too. That protection option should come with significantly higher investment but no upkeep cost like shields. Underground should also reduce the emissions (both EM and Thermal) of a body significantly, as well as provide cover for all ground troops outside PDCs.
Post by: swarm_sadist on November 19, 2013, 07:57:44 PM
Here I see a balancing problem with planetary shields though. Should the same cost shield really be able to cover your entire imperial capital with billions of population and tens of thousands of facilities compared to a shield for simple DSTS in a small outpost?
I never said it would cost the same, and I never said it should be able to protect everything at once. In master's of orion 3, buildings were a certain 'size' which determined the likelihood they would be hit by weapon fire. A larger building had a much higher chance of being hit. All buildings also had a percent chance of being destroyed per hit (Hit-to-Kill). Shields were buildings that were very large (therefor hit more often than most buildings) and had a low chance of destruction (they absorbed the hits against them without being destroyed themselves).
I only offer this way because HTK and size are already coded into the game in the form of components (for ships). Making buildings act like components to a planet would be simpler than thinking of an entirely different system just for planets.
Quote
If you need to go that far to make it accurate we might as well also throw in underground / armor on all facilities as another option to protect from bombardment too. That protection option should come with significantly higher investment but no upkeep cost like shields. Underground should also reduce the emissions (both EM and Thermal) of a body significantly, as well as provide cover for all ground troops outside PDCs.
Underground buildings actually do have a large upkeep cost, but I like the idea of underground military bases too much to complain. New building: heat sinks? Shouldn't hot planets with large atmospheres and magnetic fields act as a cloak naturally?
Post by: Jacen on November 19, 2013, 11:28:50 PM
PDCs are essentially bunkers, which is why they start with 5 armour automatically, because they are built into mountains and such. However, planetary shields are pretty interesting idea, if they can be balanced properly. I also like having hot planets/magnetic fields affect EM/TH readings, but I'm not sure how hard that would be to code and balance.
Post by: MarcAFK on November 20, 2013, 06:16:49 AM
While I'm on the subject, I think powerplants should require fuel and shields should require power. Perhaps a research line could allow normal engines to produce a small quantity of energy for shields or energy weapons in return for temporary reduction of speed?
Post by: Whitecold on November 20, 2013, 08:48:23 AM
I've been thinking, that perhaps for the same reasons that most energy weapons don't work in atmospheres, maybe planetary shields would be affected also. Perhaps certain gases would stop shields from working or alter their properties, too much pressure might stop shields from working or increase their fuel requirements.
While I'm on the subject, I think powerplants should require fuel and shields should require power. Perhaps a research line could allow normal engines to produce a small quantity of energy for shields or energy weapons in return for temporary reduction of speed?
I have a suggestion to overhaul the entire energy system, adding both an additional layer to Ship design and to Combat.
Beside fuel capacity each ship has an energy capacity, which is determined by the size of the capacitor banks installed, the energy density of those banks determined by the capacitor tech.
These banks are filled by the power plants which convert fuel to energy. Conversion rate should depend on the tech level, with a bonus for large plants. Energy weapons are no longer limited in firing rate by capacitor tech, but instead a new cooling system tech, which determines the maximum rate of fire
Energy weapons, shields, engines, jump drives, maybe sensors all drain energy, of course only when active. This requires the player to balance power plants and capacitors relative to each other, so a warship has enough energy to keep firing during an engagement. Also by increasing efficiency for large power plants, one has to balance fuel efficiency versus redundancy of multiple small plants, especially with the new shock damage.
Energy could also be transferred in hangars, allowing fully capacitor powered fighters for short term use.
Missiles could also get the option to be either capacitor powered or fuel powered.
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on December 05, 2013, 04:24:57 PM
It would make life in the game much easier if we could activate sensor systems individually. It is so frustrating I can't build all purpose cruisers with all types of sensor resolutions. If I do they will be revealed as soon as I want to switch on a fighter resolution active scanner but not the resolution 240 one.
You can of course cheat this system by envision ships to be sort of modular by using hangars and hulls (stations) with only a sensor system. On larger ships I tend to add large resolution scanners (bigger than res 20) as modular to circumvent this flaw. Although, it would be nice if I did not have to do this. ;)
Post by: MarcAFK on December 06, 2013, 02:02:58 AM
Post by: swarm_sadist on December 08, 2013, 02:10:18 PM
Underground Hanger: Very large but only on PDCs.
Necropolis: Clones or seeds a limited population in case of emergencies using stored embryos.
Cloning Centre: Clones a population, to increase population growth based on the number of buildings and wealth available(as opposed to natural growth, which is affected by radiation, colony rating, current population, etc)
PDC Cloak: To increase the cloaking size, but only on PDCs.
Colony Pod: Can build infrastructure like a large civilian population, when above a planet and with access to duranium.
Production pod: Ship or PDC based that produces maintenance supplies with proper resources.
Active ECM: Produces EM but makes the ship harder to hit with active weapons when activated.
-Have missiles intercepting targets moving perpendicular to their course should follow the hypotenuse of their expected course, not curve to follow their current position.
-Allow colonists in stasis to be transferred from one ship to another. I'm not actually sure if this is already in the game.
-Allow us to force an NPR to surrender, capitulate, sign an armistice, etc, through SM.
-Allow an NPR to be hostile militarily and militarily, but choose not to engage in hostile actions.
-The ability to force civilians to move in convoys in hostile systems.
-Prison colonies: currently I played a game where I captured the enemy homeworld (what appears to be their only world) when another NPR destroyed their last population centre. Now the only remaining population for that race is the 10,000 POWs I have laying around.
-Prison Ships: To transport POWs from one world to another, or to a permanent prison station. Perhaps a brig component?
-Ability to rename populations in the population and production screen. When you do a multi faction start and conquer another player, they both say "Earth - Human" for the population.
-Allow us to input data manually into intelligence: weapon type, damage, rate of fire, range, number, missile size, magazine size estimate, etc.
-Update the strategic intelligence window to show data such as know population centres, manufacturing centres, leaders, mining colonies, civilian companies, etc.
-Have signal interception pick up basic intelligence about a race when close to high population worlds
-Have infrastructure be upgradable to Underground infrastructure, somewhat like mines and automated mines are right now.
-Allow terraformers to clean up atmospheric dust
-Have terraformers produce tonnes of gases instead of percentage of gases (pressure scales with planet size?)
-Have gas pressure dependent upon diametre of planet.
-Mission Packages: Have a ships ordinance/strike group be separated into mission packages you can customize. Have mission packages be on a ship by ship basis, with one being chosen as the default mission package.
-Have a 'variant' option when designing a ship, which will warn you when activated when you go over the retrofit limit; comparing the current design to another of your choosing.
-Have a retrofit tech to increase the BP limit of retrofits.
-Have components which are of a much smaller percentage of the ships total tonnage cost less to retrofit than a large component.
Post by: swarm_sadist on March 17, 2014, 06:11:46 PM
A smaller suggestion. An import-export feature for save game files to allow for save game transfers and backups. Preferably in the start window.
Also, if possible, to have the ship hulls, name templates and so forth be outside the database. Or have them be importable-exportable or updatable.
Post by: MarcAFK on March 18, 2014, 01:12:10 AM
Edit: I like the idea of the cloning center, actually It would be nice if pre existing genetic modification center's had an option to instead increase population growth by 250k a year rather than modifying existing population.
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on April 07, 2014, 05:15:38 AM
Sensors
I would like for sensor system to become more realistic. As it is it is just to much min/max which is not fair against the AI that often attach active scanners to most of their ships and it is not very realistic. The more scanners the more likely you should be to pick up the correct information in any engagement.
1. At least make the Strength of active and passive sensors cover the area and not be a linear function. Aurora is on a 2d map so making them scan in 3d is perhaps a bit too much. So this would make the range fall of much quicker with larger scanning equipment.
2. Make the detection of object into a random event, it is not realistic to have an automatic barrier where you detect something. It is no more realistic than using the same system for a weapon hitting or missing a target. This would also make it useful to mount active (and passive) sensors on as many platforms as possible or even using several on the same ship for that matter.
3. Passive sensors should not be automatic either, they should initially detect an echo and after a while (the more platforms and the more spread out they are) you will get more robust information about that echo, such as distance/speed and strength. In reality it is not that easy to know these things from a passive emission without an active component.
4. Once something is detected (either with passive or active) it should be much easier to keep tracking it, but you should be able to loose contact.
5. Each object should be detected individually so when you detect an enemy group you should never be sure of their exact composition and numbers since the detection method is randomized.
Research
I really would like research to be much less linear, this is not very realistic. I also feel that the number of labs per team (scientist) in general is too large. By the time you have enough labs to till your scientist to the maximum you will have enough scientists so it will never matter much in the end anyway. There is also a problem with research that give empire wide bonuses are too powerful in the hands of widespread large empires.
1. Make the number of labs available to scientists a new research path that start at one lab per scientist team.
2. Make every lab added to a team have a diminished effect, lets say 5-10% less RP per lab over the first. So if your RP per lab is 100 you get 100 for lab one, 90 for lab two and 81 for lab three and so on. This will represent that increased funding will never yield a linear result in efficiency which is realistic. This will also add the effect that you want to have as many scientists as possible but the skill of them is still very important.
3. Research with empire wide effect should in some way have a cost reduction/increase depending on the spread and size of said empire. For example if you want to research better industrial production it would be influenced by the number of worlds that have industrial complexes and in how many different systems and the number of sectors you have. It should also be important how many industrial complexes you have as a total. The same should be true for all the rest. Sure you could go with a system where each individual complex is upgraded (or a percentage system per planet would be enough) to make it more gradual, but that is more complex.
Terraforming
I would like terraform to be harder and slightly more realistic.
1. Get rid of safe greenhouse and anti-greenhouse gases or at least make them optional (even to the NPR)
2. Make gravity outside certain limits impact negatively on population productivity. Humans would not do well during prolonged exposure to high or low gravity. This would make genetic manipulation more important for colonial efforts.
3. Why do terraforming installations change pressures based on a percentage, that makes no sense. They should do it in some form of units, perhaps tonnage so larger planets are harder to terraform than smaller ones.
Economy and population
I feel that colonial and population management and implementation could be improved in some ways.
1. A planet should have a finite number of maximum population based on size, infrastructure and type. Going over this limit would increase the number of infrastructure you would need on the planet dramatically, even on fully terraformed and perfect planets such as Earth. This could also be tied to a new research option.
2. Population numbers should scale better in the game. I find it hard to play a game where I start with more than 500 million people at the start since large populations quickly make the snowball effect too severe. To many linear features is perhaps the problem here... There should for example be an efficiency modifier you could change along they way for both production (including science) and wealth of populations. So, you can measure improvements or deterioration in the efficiency of populations in general. Population in the game are almost always at 100% efficiency, there are no good way to represent a large country such as India and a smaller one such as the US. You can change Production (which don't seem to work) and wealth at the start of a game but it is permanent. Different societies in the world today have vastly different production efficiency per individual so a country with 10 million people could severely outproduce another with 100 million people. In the game it can somewhat be represented with giving less facilities to one than the other (but it does not solve civilian goods production) but wealth is still given per individual. In the real world rich countries might produce 10-100 times the wealth than a poor country.
I would probably be satisfied if there was a way to change these wealth and production efficiency values as a game progress. Right now I mainly adjust the total population count based on the overall wealth of an Earth nation in the game.
3. It would be interesting if civilian population would interact with the game a little more in some way and if the government type had something to do with this. Perhaps through some form of event system that could be script based and expanded by the community by adding their own events, triggers and effects.
4. Wealth should not be stored in the way we currently does. Wealth that is not used should mainly go back into the economy and just produce happiness for the people that can "endure" a better life. I think that wealth that are distributed back into society should give some form of bonus. Perhaps a small increase in wealth the next year, a small increase in population growth or some other perk. Negative wealth could pretty much be handled as it is now but the effect would be more of a result of how long and how much negative wealth you get each year. Negative wealth should also spawn lower wealth efficiency each year so the negative spiral should increase in speed if you don't take drastic measures in a couple of years.
Post by: ShadowLop on April 07, 2014, 07:10:29 PM
A small list of features I would like to see, some might be a repeat of similar things I have said before.You are expecting an army to arrive some time between now and tomorrow. You don't know exactly where they will show up, but you know it's someplace over "there". Your scouts are 100% identical: Same training, same experience, same brains, same eyes. They act identical, they think identical. So, it doesn't matter if you have one on a hill or 50 on that hill, they won't see it any sooner or later. Having more scanners in a fleet would not yield more information, since all the scanners that could pick it up will, the ones that can't, won't. Speading them out across the entire system would be the only way to do what you're thinking.
Sensors
I would like for sensor system to become more realistic. As it is it is just to much min/max which is not fair against the AI that often attach active scanners to most of their ships and it is not very realistic. The more scanners the more likely you should be to pick up the correct information in any engagement.
Quote
1. At least make the Strength of active and passive sensors cover the area and not be a linear function. Aurora is on a 2d map so making them scan in 3d is perhaps a bit too much. So this would make the range fall of much quicker with larger scanning equipment.Not really sure what you mean here: Do you want sensors to fall off faster? Scan 2D or 3D?
Quote
2. Make the detection of object into a random event, it is not realistic to have an automatic barrier where you detect something. It is no more realistic than using the same system for a weapon hitting or missing a target. This would also make it useful to mount active (and passive) sensors on as many platforms as possible or even using several on the same ship for that matter.A radar will show you the location of every plane that enters its range, as long as it's high enough above the ground (in Aurora, has a cross section large enough) and it can make a full sweep at least once per 5 seconds. Granted, it won't necessarily tell you what the ship is, but then again, neither do sensors in Aurora. At max range, all they tell you is speed and resolution (tonnage is extrapolated from this). It's the Intelligence division that names it. You need the target within range of separate thermal sensors before you can get engine output readings. You also need to get closer and closer to get EM/sensor emissions (if any) along with other information. Also, the only way to get concrete data on target ships is to shoot them (defences), have them shoot you (weapons) or pick their wreckage for clues/components. Further, I presume that a ship with sensors would have multiple receivers on the hull so it can triangulate with itself. Finally, in terms of targeting with sensors: Missile Guidance systems need to be able to lock on to a target so they can guide the missile in. If your guidance system can't see the target, then it's not going to be able to bring the missile within detonation range. Beam targeting systems have a range they can see the target and a tracking speed that they can calculate the flight path of the target. If the target is too fast, the targeting system isn't going to be able to track it.
Quote
3. Passive sensors should not be automatic either, they should initially detect an echo and after a while (the more platforms and the more spread out they are) you will get more robust information about that echo, such as distance/speed and strength. In reality it is not that easy to know these things from a passive emission without an active component.On Earth, passive sensors need a LOT of filtering to compensate for planetary magnetic fields, environment, other EM emissions, etc. Even then, a simple thermal camera will pick out a plane against a sky, or a tank in some bushes. In space, all you have is the Cosmic Background radiation and that's not very much there. When your engines are spewing several thousand to million units of heat into empty space, that's going to be pretty easy to pick up at impressive range, especially when your camera is several hundred tonnes in size. Same with shields, that's some pretty impressive EM emissions. Passive sensors could easily pick out where the emissions are coming from within a reasonable distance. As for speed? That's High-School maths. You simply monitor it for 5 seconds and you can triangulate speed and bearing, especially if you distribute several sensors across the hull for self-triangulation. You seem to be basing this on something like sonar, which would need some time to determine velocity, but you need to think of it more like a super-high-res thermal camera than sonar: always watching.
Quote
4. Once something is detected (either with passive or active) it should be much easier to keep tracking it, but you should be able to loose contact.Your computers know what your ship is doing, so compensating (figuring out how the contact will move within your active range, or moving the passive cameras to where the contact was last seen) would take all of the time to actually turn the ship, which is <5 seconds. At most, you'd lose the contact for 5 seconds as you make a turn, you'd pick it up almost immediately afterwards, especially since unless the contact is right on top of you or moving at nearly light-speed, it's not going to have moved very far in 5 seconds relative to your starscape. Losing contacts for a substantial amount of time would only really be possible if the contact exceeds your detection range (either flying away or activating cloaks).
Quote
5. Each object should be detected individually so when you detect an enemy group you should never be sure of their exact composition and numbers since the detection method is randomized.Although ships in the same fleet are counted as being in the same spot, they'd be no closer than 2-5km from each other. Easily enough distance for a scanner to focus in once it's picked up one contact and pick out each and every ship in the fleet (provided it's big enough of course). The only thing that I'm not sure about would be if a smaller ship in a fleet with a larger ship would both be picked up, which they shouldn't. If this is the case, then yeah, you can't be sure if that's one large ship on it's own, or if it's accompanied by 500 fighters/FACs.
Quote
3. It would be interesting if civilian population would interact with the game a little more in some way and if the government type had something to do with this. Perhaps through some form of event system that could be script based and expanded by the community by adding their own events, triggers and effects.This would be cool, but I think it's a bit lower on the list compared to actual ship mechanics.
Quote
4. Wealth should not be stored in the way we currently does. Wealth that is not used should mainly go back into the economy and just produce happiness for the people that can "endure" a better life. I think that wealth that are distributed back into society should give some form of bonus. Perhaps a small increase in wealth the next year, a small increase in population growth or some other perk. Negative wealth could pretty much be handled as it is now but the effect would be more of a result of how long and how much negative wealth you get each year. Negative wealth should also spawn lower wealth efficiency each year so the negative spiral should increase in speed if you don't take drastic measures in a couple of years.I believe someone mentioned somewhere that Wealth isn't just money, but the overall military industrial capacity of a civilization: Goods, services, support facilities, etc. Having lots of wealth means your society has the capacity to remunerate the workers to work at your facilities, put them up to live, employing and supplying support staff, etc.
Post by: CheaterEater on April 07, 2014, 08:04:09 PM
2. Make every lab added to a team have a diminished effect, lets say 5-10% less RP per lab over the first. So if your RP per lab is 100 you get 100 for lab one, 90 for lab two and 81 for lab three and so on. This will represent that increased funding will never yield a linear result in efficiency which is realistic. This will also add the effect that you want to have as many scientists as possible but the skill of them is still very important.
Emphasis mine. I'm sorry but I don't think that's at all true, considering that there are plenty of massive scientific collaborative efforts. Some examples that come to mind are RHIC, CERN/LHC, T2K (and other neutrino experiments), various national laboratories (NIST, Argonne, Oak Ridge, Los Alamos) and space programs like NASA. It seems clear to me that not only does massive funding of single projects make some research faster but also it's the only way they are even possible. Admittedly those are physics examples but considering most of our in-game research revolves around the subject I believe the examples are appropriate.
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on April 08, 2014, 12:08:49 AM
Emphasis mine. I'm sorry but I don't think that's at all true, considering that there are plenty of massive scientific collaborative efforts. Some examples that come to mind are RHIC, CERN/LHC, T2K (and other neutrino experiments), various national laboratories (NIST, Argonne, Oak Ridge, Los Alamos) and space programs like NASA. It seems clear to me that not only does massive funding of single projects make some research faster but also it's the only way they are even possible. Admittedly those are physics examples but considering most of our in-game research revolves around the subject I believe the examples are appropriate.
In my opinion these are good example on where great project do have diminished capacity for total resources spent. You can't in general just spend twice the amount of resources and expect twice the amount of results, not if you already have the best and brightest working on a project to begin with.
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on April 08, 2014, 12:20:03 AM
You are expecting an army to arrive some time between now and tomorrow. You don't know exactly where they will show up, but you know it's someplace over "there". Your scouts are 100% identical: Same training, same experience, same brains, same eyes. They act identical, they think identical. So, it doesn't matter if you have one on a hill or 50 on that hill, they won't see it any sooner or later. Having more scanners in a fleet would not yield more information, since all the scanners that could pick it up will, the ones that can't, won't. Speading them out across the entire system would be the only way to do what you're thinking.
Not really sure what you mean here: Do you want sensors to fall off faster? Scan 2D or 3D?
A radar will show you the location of every plane that enters its range, as long as it's high enough above the ground (in Aurora, has a cross section large enough) and it can make a full sweep at least once per 5 seconds. Granted, it won't necessarily tell you what the ship is, but then again, neither do sensors in Aurora. At max range, all they tell you is speed and resolution (tonnage is extrapolated from this). It's the Intelligence division that names it. You need the target within range of separate thermal sensors before you can get engine output readings. You also need to get closer and closer to get EM/sensor emissions (if any) along with other information. Also, the only way to get concrete data on target ships is to shoot them (defences), have them shoot you (weapons) or pick their wreckage for clues/components. Further, I presume that a ship with sensors would have multiple receivers on the hull so it can triangulate with itself. Finally, in terms of targeting with sensors: Missile Guidance systems need to be able to lock on to a target so they can guide the missile in. If your guidance system can't see the target, then it's not going to be able to bring the missile within detonation range. Beam targeting systems have a range they can see the target and a tracking speed that they can calculate the flight path of the target. If the target is too fast, the targeting system isn't going to be able to track it.
On Earth, passive sensors need a LOT of filtering to compensate for planetary magnetic fields, environment, other EM emissions, etc. Even then, a simple thermal camera will pick out a plane against a sky, or a tank in some bushes. In space, all you have is the Cosmic Background radiation and that's not very much there. When your engines are spewing several thousand to million units of heat into empty space, that's going to be pretty easy to pick up at impressive range, especially when your camera is several hundred tonnes in size. Same with shields, that's some pretty impressive EM emissions. Passive sensors could easily pick out where the emissions are coming from within a reasonable distance. As for speed? That's High-School maths. You simply monitor it for 5 seconds and you can triangulate speed and bearing, especially if you distribute several sensors across the hull for self-triangulation. You seem to be basing this on something like sonar, which would need some time to determine velocity, but you need to think of it more like a super-high-res thermal camera than sonar: always watching.
Your computers know what your ship is doing, so compensating (figuring out how the contact will move within your active range, or moving the passive cameras to where the contact was last seen) would take all of the time to actually turn the ship, which is <5 seconds. At most, you'd lose the contact for 5 seconds as you make a turn, you'd pick it up almost immediately afterwards, especially since unless the contact is right on top of you or moving at nearly light-speed, it's not going to have moved very far in 5 seconds relative to your starscape. Losing contacts for a substantial amount of time would only really be possible if the contact exceeds your detection range (either flying away or activating cloaks).
Although ships in the same fleet are counted as being in the same spot, they'd be no closer than 2-5km from each other. Easily enough distance for a scanner to focus in once it's picked up one contact and pick out each and every ship in the fleet (provided it's big enough of course). The only thing that I'm not sure about would be if a smaller ship in a fleet with a larger ship would both be picked up, which they shouldn't. If this is the case, then yeah, you can't be sure if that's one large ship on it's own, or if it's accompanied by 500 fighters/FACs.
This would be cool, but I think it's a bit lower on the list compared to actual ship mechanics.
I believe someone mentioned somewhere that Wealth isn't just money, but the overall military industrial capacity of a civilization: Goods, services, support facilities, etc. Having lots of wealth means your society has the capacity to remunerate the workers to work at your facilities, put them up to live, employing and supplying support staff, etc.
In regards to passive scanners in space there are quite allot of objects in space that are bright so identifying ships in space might not be as easy as you think. Even things like asteroids have heat signals and can be indistinguishable from a heat signature of a ship engine, depending on your range from that signal and so on. Then you have all the stars and galaxies and so forth... The game work on abstraction and balance things which might not be realistic. But it is definitely not very realistic to use a linear scale for either passive or active scanners.
I'm not sure your premise for scanners picking up or not is true in real life. You pick up the echo of something and you might not know what it is (if anything at all) and the distance you pick it up depends on the current shape and angle that object is in correlation with the radar. Many military targets will have vastly different radar signatures depending on the angle it is detected at, i see no reason why this can't be true in space as well. You also need to identify targets from all the other debris that is out there in space.
I might also add that I have actually worked as a Radar operator in the Military for a year (about 20 years ago though), so I do know a thing or two about how it works.
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on April 08, 2014, 12:32:36 AM
I believe someone mentioned somewhere that Wealth isn't just money, but the overall military industrial capacity of a civilization: Goods, services, support facilities, etc. Having lots of wealth means your society has the capacity to remunerate the workers to work at your facilities, put them up to live, employing and supplying support staff, etc.
Exactly, it is a resource you can't really save for later, you either produce it and consume it now or you don't. The only thing you can save (more or less) are spare parts, food and clothes. You can't really save services and facilities need maintenance and is a tangible object that are more a drain on your economy than something you can save. Most economies are better of consuming those goods and services when they are there than just wasting them for nothing. Even food and spare parts will eventually be too old and saved food is not really high quality but more a survivability thing. Most of the things you can actually save are disaster equipment, not what I think of when I think of stored wealth.
The practical problem in the game is when you start with a relatively big population number in a conventional start. Try that if you haven't done it before. You will generally save huge amount of wealth, in fact so much it will never ever become a problem for you unless you really neglect it later on. Wealth mainly become a non issue.
To me this is a practical problem, not just a theoretical realism problem.
Post by: alex_brunius on April 08, 2014, 01:43:08 AM
Emphasis mine. I'm sorry but I don't think that's at all true, considering that there are plenty of massive scientific collaborative efforts. Some examples that come to mind are RHIC, CERN/LHC, T2K (and other neutrino experiments), various national laboratories (NIST, Argonne, Oak Ridge, Los Alamos) and space programs like NASA. It seems clear to me that not only does massive funding of single projects make some research faster but also it's the only way they are even possible. Admittedly those are physics examples but considering most of our in-game research revolves around the subject I believe the examples are appropriate.
In my opinion these are good example on where great project do have diminished capacity for total resources spent. You can't in general just spend twice the amount of resources and expect twice the amount of results, not if you already have the best and brightest working on a project to begin with.
The primary reason for this is administration, coordination and overhead.
If you have 2 teams / programmers / scientists working on the same stuff they need to coordinate in order to know what the other is doing and not do the work twice. This costs time and effort and on larger scale increases the needs of managers and administrators that can divide the work.
Just imagine your typical workday at big corporation X. How many hours each day to you spend on internal mailing, talk on the phone and attending meetings? ALL those hours are wasted coordination and would be unnecessary if you were running a one man show. Generally it is always true that the smaller the team the more effective it can be.
If anyone here claims they have solved this problem you should go out and contact any major corporation, because I suspect they would pay millions if not billions of dollars to anyone having solved the holy-grail of management! :)
Post by: ShadowLop on April 08, 2014, 02:21:18 AM
In regards to passive scanners in space there are quite allot of objects in space that are bright so identifying ships in space might not be as easy as you think. Even things like asteroids have heat signals and can be indistinguishable from a heat signature of a ship engine, depending on your range from that signal and so on. Then you have all the stars and galaxies and so forth... The game work on abstraction and balance things which might not be realistic. But it is definitely not very realistic to use a linear scale for either passive or active scanners.
I'm not sure your premise for scanners picking up or not is true in real life. You pick up the echo of something and you might not know what it is (if anything at all) and the distance you pick it up depends on the current shape and angle that object is in correlation with the radar. Many military targets will have vastly different radar signatures depending on the angle it is detected at, i see no reason why this can't be true in space as well. You also need to identify targets from all the other debris that is out there in space.
I might also add that I have actually worked as a Radar operator in the Military for a year (about 20 years ago though), so I do know a thing or two about how it works.
Let's say you're at your radar station and you see a ping. You don't really know what it is in the first ping, but the second sweep 5 seconds later shows it's moved 500m. That gives you the speed: 100m/second.
The ping delay says it's 20km away.
The Cross-section says it's 5m across, but you don't know much more than that.
While you've been figuring all this out, your station has turned on a high-power thermal and visual camera and aimed it at the ping.
The visual feed shows you a plane facing you and the thermal camera says it's rear is very very hot.
Would you think it's a flock of birds/clouds/radar ghost? Or would you think it's a plane?
When a contact is picked up you only know cross section (civilian starships may be long, but military ships would be spherical because efficiency, which means TCS would be constant), distance (triangulation off your multiple sensors) and that it most definitely is NOT natural. Intel gives it a name, not necessarily it's real name. It's only in the NEXT 5s that you get the speed, when you see it move. You know nothing else about it's capability until you see it do stuff.
When that plane appears on the radar, you don't know if it's loaded with fuel and passengers or bombs and missiles. If you don't have that particular model in your intel book, you won't know anything more than speed, distance and cross-section until you either shoot it or it shoots you, just like in Aurora.
The Sensors in Aurora wouldn't be just one satellite dish and a transmission pylon either. It would be multiple systems all interlinked together to give gravity/lidar readings as well as visual readings. The thermal sensors would probably use high-power thermal cameras instead of gravity/lidar of the active sensors. Strap all this to a future-tech supercomputer and you have yourself a system that could pick out a very hot and fast ship from the cosmic background with ease. Modern tech could do it, future-tech would definitely be able to.
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on April 08, 2014, 02:37:59 AM
Let's say you're at your radar station and you see a ping. You don't really know what it is in the first ping, but the second sweep 5 seconds later shows it's moved 500m. That gives you the speed: 100m/second.
The ping delay says it's 20km away.
The Cross-section says it's 5m across, but you don't know much more than that.
While you've been figuring all this out, your station has turned on a high-power thermal and visual camera and aimed it at the ping.
The visual feed shows you a plane facing you and the thermal camera says it's rear is very very hot.
Would you think it's a flock of birds/clouds/radar ghost? Or would you think it's a plane?
When a contact is picked up you only know cross section (civilian starships may be long, but military ships would be spherical because efficiency, which means TCS would be constant), distance (triangulation off your multiple sensors) and that it most definitely is NOT natural. Intel gives it a name, not necessarily it's real name. It's only in the NEXT 5s that you get the speed, when you see it move. You know nothing else about it's capability until you see it do stuff.
When that plane appears on the radar, you don't know if it's loaded with fuel and passengers or bombs and missiles. If you don't have that particular model in your intel book, you won't know anything more than speed, distance and cross-section until you either shoot it or it shoots you, just like in Aurora.
The Sensors in Aurora wouldn't be just one satellite dish and a transmission pylon either. It would be multiple systems all interlinked together to give gravity/lidar readings as well as visual readings. The thermal sensors would probably use high-power thermal cameras instead of gravity/lidar of the active sensors. Strap all this to a future-tech supercomputer and you have yourself a system that could pick out a very hot and fast ship from the cosmic background with ease. Modern tech could do it, future-tech would definitely be able to.
It does not really work like that in real life. You can't just know when you first detect something on radar is the factual maximum distance it could have been detected. It will depend on so many things. In reality you use multiple radar installations for a reason to triangular readings. You use multiple sources of aircraft with radar to increase the chances of detecting something etc... things that is not just a result of the curvature of the earth.
I don't think that Spherical shapes is the most efficient for all intents and purposes (in military application) it all depends on so many other factors where a spherical shaped object is not always the best option. I highly doubt that ships would be truly spherical in space in the future for many different reasons.
We also know very little what type of drive systems that Aurora actually use and how much thermal energy is actually released, so you can't just assume it is easy to detect. Perhaps ships use a Warp type engine where the heat energy is just a fraction of what a regular thrust engine would use.
In my opinion you are over simplifying how this would work.
Anyway any debate on the subject should be in another thread, not here.
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on April 08, 2014, 09:03:49 AM
Crew & Task-force training
1. I would like for Crew to actually be replaced as time go on, currently crew only accumulates in your pool and people seem to live for ever and in service to their profession. I think this could also be tied in with you academy training level to some extent. Higher educated personnel should stay in service longer. Ships that are deployed for longer time periods (actual time deployed) should also rotate people more quickly. People are only rotated when the ship is at port at a colony with at least 10000 people.
This would make crew management a little more interesting and present another resource that you can actually manage and control. The more you use your ships the more crew you will also need to train. New crew should also mean less experienced crew.
Crew in your pool should also have a hard cap based on your training level and number of academies, this simulates that people will not stay in service for ever.
2. Crew that are on mission should gain slightly more experience than crew at port, if that is not already so. I think that ships in port should get much less training so that experience overall will slowly drop as crew are rotated in and out on the ship. Only ship that is on actual missions should gain experience overall.
3. Likewise Task-force training should not be permanent, it should drop of as ships are at port and as crew are rotated in and out of the ship. It should fall of faster on higher levels so 100% training will rarely last for long and at most you will have between 90-100% for highly coordinated fleets assets.
4. I think that the maintenance cost for ships should somehow increase with age and more based on how long since their last overhaul (based on factors such as average maintenance cycles).
5. Please let ships on task-force training automatically refuel and got to port to rest ships when any of them in the group reached 100% deployment time. It is a nightmare (without cheating) to train ships with very low deployment times such as 0.1 and 0.5 month deployment such as FAC and other gunboats.
In my opinion this would introduce a fairly realistic management (without being complex) of highly trained crew with good task-force coordination versus a high cost in academy training, wealth, resources and fuel costs. You might have a smaller part of your fleet in top notch combat readiness with high task-force training and skilled crew while a larger part act as your reserve with much lower task-force training and skilled crew.
The current model are somewhat static and once crew and ships are trained they just stay that way indefinitely until you dissolve them which if you upgrade carefully will almost never happen.
Post by: ShadowLop on April 08, 2014, 07:34:57 PM
It does not really work like that in real life. You can't just know when you first detect something on radar is the factual maximum distance it could have been detected. It will depend on so many things. In reality you use multiple radar installations for a reason to triangular readings. You use multiple sources of aircraft with radar to increase the chances of detecting something etc... things that is not just a result of the curvature of the earth.Actually, it would. You would detect that object at the maximum distance you could detect that object. If you can't detect it further than that distance, they you didn't detect it while it was further out. Whether it's too small or masking you or your sensors are too crap, you detect it when you detect it and that's the max you could detect it at. Your radar net would detect the same plane at the same time no matter how many times it makes that flight path. Unless it adds/removes shielding or changes it's path, it'll give the same result every time.
Now, detection:
Based on your resolution and sensor strength that you KNOW, using the mathematical equations that your computer KNOWS, you know how far you SHOULD be able to see a ship of X size with each sensor. If that ship is smaller, or is using shielding to make itself seem smaller, then you WON'T pick it up until it's closer. But if something appears on your scanner, you can triangulate it off your own sensors (using multiple receivers on the same ship) or use the parallax of movement, to figure out it's much closer. Based on that, you can figure out how big the ship is (or appears to be) and at least where it is in relation to yourself.
One ship with multiple detection points sufficiently far apart can triangulate with itself, it wouldn't need multiple ships with independent sensors. Remember, these sensors are HUGE. My 80 res, billion km range sensor is 750 tonnes on it's own. The accompanying 129mkm res 1 sensor is another 750tonnes. That's 1500 tonnes of sensor equipment. Assuming that even 40-50% of that is the actual computers, imagine how many antennas you could put using 700 tonnes of light-weight, strong, future-tech materials? I'd put a transmitter for the ping and at least 4-6 antennas (probably on towers too) scattered around the ship. At the distance between ships in a single fleet, it's not enough to give substantial improvement over self-triangulation. The spotter of a sniper team is going to be pretty close to the sniper and they can triangulate fairly well, you don't need to be at crazy angles to triangulate.
What you are describing: using multiple radar stations, would equate to using multiple picket fleets several mkm(or bkm) out to increase coverage, which is a viable tactic. Having multiple ships in the same fleet with scanners would give no benefit unless the scanners are geared differently (AM vs AS).
I also never mentioned anything about curvature of the Earth.
Quote
I don't think that Spherical shapes is the most efficient for all intents and purposes (in military application) it all depends on so many other factors where a spherical shaped object is not always the best option. I highly doubt that ships would be truly spherical in space in the future for many different reasons.A spherical shape doesn't need to worry about breaking along the long axis when making a sharp turn, or having large concentrations of mass swinging wildly during said turn. It also presents the smallest possible TCS at any angle (as opposed to just head-on) and provides maximum volume for mass. A slight elongation along the long axis may be beneficial (Or required to fit specialised equipment), but nothing too extreme otherwise you need to add extra lateral thrust pointing outwards to not snap your ship, which decreases efficiency. Since it has a high surface area to volume ratio, it also means less mass needs to be expended on armoring the same mass ship. It also means that the bridge and critical components have the same amount of armor from any direction, which reduces vulnerabilities. The more spherical, the better. This is ultimately roleplay though as I doubt Steve will ever want to change the code to track TCS from POV of individual objects.
Quote
We also know very little what type of drive systems that Aurora actually use and how much thermal energy is actually released, so you can't just assume it is easy to detect. Perhaps ships use a Warp type engine where the heat energy is just a fraction of what a regular thrust engine would use.
It's clearly a non-newtonian drive system (Duh), since the ship stops when it's shut off, but the exact mechanics are irrelevant, since we DO know how much thermal energy is released. Some maths:
My population is 2.6 billion. 4500 various factories, 1.8 million tonne shipyard capacity, various refineries, mines, support structures, etc.
Thermal output is 77500.
My Missile Cruiser has 2x4000EP Internal Confinement Fusion engines, 50% shielded for a total thrust of 8000.
They produce a thermal signature of 4000 units, so 8000 unshielded.
So we can presume that unshielded engines produce 1 thermal per EP.
How visible would my 13,500km/s, 30,000t object be?
5.16% of my colony above, or 10.32% unshielded. At a mass of 0.000000000000005 percent of that same colony.
If you were both sitting still, I suppose you could (maybe) mistake it for a star (If a very odd one). The second one of you moved though, the parallax would show it to be only a few million km away, or the multiple sensors on your hull triangulated between themselves could do the same even without movement.
The fact is, that the sensors as they are work just fine extrapolated from current tech and requiring multiple sensors on multiple ships to get better/more accurate readings is pointless and less realistic than a single ship doing all the work. You're welcome to use multiple fleets to get better coverage of an area, but within the sensor range, the mechanics are just fine as they are.
Unless you can find a new reason for using multiple identical scanners in a fleet, I'm done.
Post by: CheaterEater on April 08, 2014, 07:39:32 PM
In my opinion these are good example on where great project do have diminished capacity for total resources spent. You can't in general just spend twice the amount of resources and expect twice the amount of results, not if you already have the best and brightest working on a project to begin with.
What diminished capacity? There are zero other examples of some of these labs. There is no way to make them smaller. It's not spending twice the resource and getting twice the results, it's spending twice the resources to get any results. Once you have exhausted low-hanging fruit many fields require massively increased expenditures. The first "big" physics experiments could be done on a tabletop, then they took a building, then acres and now the LHC is several miles across. Projects get bigger, not smaller, and the research requires the increased expenditure. Either you build massive new facilities or upgrade old ones, but you don't create dozens of small facilities and expect big research projects to get completed. Ten 100 GeV accelerators do not equal a single 1 TeV accelerator.
The primary reason for this is administration, coordination and overhead.
If you have 2 teams / programmers / scientists working on the same stuff they need to coordinate in order to know what the other is doing and not do the work twice. This costs time and effort and on larger scale increases the needs of managers and administrators that can divide the work.
Just imagine your typical workday at big corporation X. How many hours each day to you spend on internal mailing, talk on the phone and attending meetings? ALL those hours are wasted coordination and would be unnecessary if you were running a one man show. Generally it is always true that the smaller the team the more effective it can be.
If anyone here claims they have solved this problem you should go out and contact any major corporation, because I suspect they would pay millions if not billions of dollars to anyone having solved the holy-grail of management! :)
We aren't talking about a small group of scientists here, large projects like RHIC, the LHC and T2K send data to thousands of collaborating scientists and directly employ hundreds (if not thousands) by themselves. If you can think of anyone who can single-handedly replace billions of dollars worth of projects and hundreds of thousands of scientist-hours, please, let me know so I can get them their Nobel Prizes as quickly as possible.
Here's the stat, straight from the game: A single lab employs one million people. Not one scientist, not a small team. Even if 1% of those "employed" are high-level scientists a single lab is roughly equivalent to the LHC project. We are already firmly in the realm of big science. A single laser might weigh in at hundreds of tons, a ship in the thousands or tens of thousands. We are beyond any single scientist. These specific scientists in the game are (I believe) at most directors of large projects that employ hundreds or thousands of scientists and might even represent a small team of scientific management. Why not limit the number of labs per scientist like the first research suggestion? Expensive lab management research could easily represent increased management resources to allow a directing team to control and combine the work of more labs. But reduced effectiveness with multiple "labs" (multiple labs could represent one larger lab)? I don't see any evidence to support that and plenty to refute it.
Post by: sloanjh on April 08, 2014, 09:29:57 PM
A discussion on the benefits of the mechanics you suggest, in the thread it was suggested in? Of course it belongs elsewhere. </sarcasm>
Steve uses the official suggestion and bug threads as "filing cabinets". For a detailed/lengthy discussion of a particular suggestion, it's a good idea to move the discussion into a separate thread (that's referred to in the main one) so that other actual suggestions don't get lost in between the discussion posts.
If someone wants this discussion broken out into a new thread, say so and I or another moderator will pull out the appropriate posts....
John
Post by: alex_brunius on April 09, 2014, 02:12:36 PM
What diminished capacity? There are zero other examples of some of these labs. There is no way to make them smaller. It's not spending twice the resource and getting twice the results, it's spending twice the resources to get any results. Once you have exhausted low-hanging fruit many fields require massively increased expenditures. The first "big" physics experiments could be done on a tabletop, then they took a building, then acres and now the LHC is several miles across. Projects get bigger, not smaller, and the research requires the increased expenditure. Either you build massive new facilities or upgrade old ones, but you don't create dozens of small facilities and expect big research projects to get completed. Ten 100 GeV accelerators do not equal a single 1 TeV accelerator.
We aren't talking about a small group of scientists here, large projects like RHIC, the LHC and T2K send data to thousands of collaborating scientists and directly employ hundreds (if not thousands) by themselves. If you can think of anyone who can single-handedly replace billions of dollars worth of projects and hundreds of thousands of scientist-hours, please, let me know so I can get them their Nobel Prizes as quickly as possible.
Here's the stat, straight from the game: A single lab employs one million people. Not one scientist, not a small team. Even if 1% of those "employed" are high-level scientists a single lab is roughly equivalent to the LHC project. We are already firmly in the realm of big science. A single laser might weigh in at hundreds of tons, a ship in the thousands or tens of thousands. We are beyond any single scientist. These specific scientists in the game are (I believe) at most directors of large projects that employ hundreds or thousands of scientists and might even represent a small team of scientific management. Why not limit the number of labs per scientist like the first research suggestion? Expensive lab management research could easily represent increased management resources to allow a directing team to control and combine the work of more labs. But reduced effectiveness with multiple "labs" (multiple labs could represent one larger lab)? I don't see any evidence to support that and plenty to refute it.
The same rules apply for all businesses, regardless of size. Going from 1 million to 50 million employed will be just as bad as going from 10 to 500 employed.
The more people you have involved the more is lost to inefficiencies and waste. It is an irrefutable fact.
With a team of 100k in the same lab (assuming 90% is support staff) every department can focus on their own task/problem, with 50 labs of 5 million every task/problem need to be divided into 50 smaller tasks/problems that needs coordination between up to 50 labs to solve the problem. Coordination that was in no way present in the previous example with a single lab.
As I wrote, if have a solution to how to increase size of a team/business/project without waste or efficiency loss big business will pay you billions for it, because it would be revolutionary.
Post by: CheaterEater on April 09, 2014, 04:08:07 PM
The same rules apply for all businesses, regardless of size. Going from 1 million to 50 million employed will be just as bad as going from 10 to 500 employed.
The more people you have involved the more is lost to inefficiencies and waste. It is an irrefutable fact.
With a team of 100k in the same lab (assuming 90% is support staff) every department can focus on their own task/problem, with 50 labs of 5 million every task/problem need to be divided into 50 smaller tasks/problems that needs coordination between up to 50 labs to solve the problem. Coordination that was in no way present in the previous example with a single lab.
As I wrote, if have a solution to how to increase size of a team/business/project without waste or efficiency loss big business will pay you billions for it, because it would be revolutionary.
The point is not that there is inefficiency and waste associated with C3 overhead on larger projects, I readily admit to that. The point is that collaborations lead to specializations and economies of scale that lead to overall increased efficiency beyond what is lost. Here are some very relevant examples:
Factories exist because they are so much more incredibly efficient than single or small groups of workers. Everything like tool sharing, specialized training, task focus and knowledge transfers make them such great producers. Historically, manufacturing moved from single decentralized producers (cottage industry) to massive centralized factories employing hundreds or thousands. If these big factories were not as efficient the small-time artisans would have stayed in business.
Research programs oftentimes involve large collaborations for major projects to allow pooling of resources and specialization. Space programs employ specialists in each area to get things done. One group works on a dust collector, another on the magnetometer boom, a third the imaging equipment. You have engineers to build the rockets, launch control specialists, pilots and researchers (for manned spaceflight) and even janitors to clean up at the end of the day. Other large projects would be simply impossible without pooled resources. You don't build a rocket to go halfway to space and you don't halfway create a new particle. You must pass a minimum threshold that is oftentimes beyond any smaller groups.
Military work has become hugely consolidated. We have slowly moved from tribal warfare to city-states and feudal kingdoms to nation-states battling it out to mass conscription to permanent professional armies. They have become more and more centralized, more directly managed and more specialized. They have also become incredibly efficient and powerful as a result, even beyond technology's effects; compare some third-world warlord to any NATO power. Again, role specialization and economy of scale win out over bureaucracy.
All of these examples contain plenty of waste. But they are still much more efficient than the small groups for reasons beyond that.
Post by: alex_brunius on April 10, 2014, 01:57:45 AM
The point is not that there is inefficiency and waste associated with C3 overhead on larger projects, I readily admit to that. The point is that collaborations lead to specializations and economies of scale that lead to overall increased efficiency beyond what is lost. Here are some very relevant examples:
Specialization and increased overall efficiency due to improved technology that you are talking about here is handled in Aurora by the techs that improve research efficiency.
If you have the same level of technology, same level of equipment, then having 10 labs working on the same tech instead of 1 should not really be 10 times more effective.
CERN today has around 15000 employed (also including visiting scientists & engineers), compared to 1 million for a single research lab in Aurora. It is hard to imagine any situation where 1 million is not enough for even the largest research projects and experiments needed. Also remember that we already are very specialized due to the nature of Aurora ship building divided into components. Instead of researching an entire Carrier with everything on it you already divide it into dozens of projects. One research project can for example be researching a new missile engine component that will be used inside a missile, inside a launcher, inside a fighter, inside a carrier. It's hard to get more specialized then that.
It also seems you are mixing up alot of concepts here. Economy of Scale and Factory production then sure of course you are right that having one big assembly line instead of 10 small workshops employing the same amount is more effective.
But it doesn't work that way for Research, RnD and Product development. Every day you can see big companies buy up small upstarts with innovative technology and ideas, simply because they can't come up with those ideas themself, no matter if their RnD department is 1000 times larger. In a big company waste and as you put it C3 prevents you from seeing the big picture and making the big science breakthroughs.
If you ever see a big company buy a smaller rural workshop, it is because of their ideas, patents and innovative approaches, not because of their production assets.
Post by: CheaterEater on April 10, 2014, 03:44:21 PM
Specialization and increased overall efficiency due to improved technology that you are talking about here is handled in Aurora by the techs that improve research efficiency.
If you have the same level of technology, same level of equipment, then having 10 labs working on the same tech instead of 1 should not really be 10 times more effective.
CERN today has around 15000 employed (also including visiting scientists & engineers), compared to 1 million for a single research lab in Aurora. It is hard to imagine any situation where 1 million is not enough for even the largest research projects and experiments needed. Also remember that we already are very specialized due to the nature of Aurora ship building divided into components. Instead of researching an entire Carrier with everything on it you already divide it into dozens of projects. One research project can for example be researching a new missile engine component that will be used inside a missile, inside a launcher, inside a fighter, inside a carrier. It's hard to get more specialized then that.
It also seems you are mixing up alot of concepts here. Economy of Scale and Factory production then sure of course you are right that having one big assembly line instead of 10 small workshops employing the same amount is more effective.
But it doesn't work that way for Research, RnD and Product development. Every day you can see big companies buy up small upstarts with innovative technology and ideas, simply because they can't come up with those ideas themself, no matter if their RnD department is 1000 times larger. In a big company waste and as you put it C3 prevents you from seeing the big picture and making the big science breakthroughs.
If you ever see a big company buy a smaller rural workshop, it is because of their ideas, patents and innovative approaches, not because of their production assets.
I would be leery of assigning numbers too closely to how work is done. The in-game numbers might include significant portions of the rest of the supply/research chain, such as a copper refiner which gets copper to a superconductor manufacturer which gets superconducting elements to the engineers who actually build and set up everything. I don't know the source of your number but I doubt it accounts for such things, while the in-game workforce very well could (and reasonably so, considering you can pick them up and move it around it has to be mostly self-contained).
In any case, I would be especially hesitant to try and predict the future sizes of large research collaborations. I doubt anyone can predict future research project sizes now (although we are rapidly approaching Aurora's default start date), much less once we throw in trans-newtonian materials, jump technology or alien artifacts. Can anyone guess how many people it would to support a long-term manned expedition to study jump points, including planet-bound support staff, ship manufacturers, probe constructors, launch facilities, upkeep and researcher training? That's just to collect the data, much less analyze and utilize it. For comparison, the Apollo program employed about 400,000 people at its peak according to NASA, and that was in the 60s/70s without new TN materials involved.
If research is so much better with small firms, why do DuPont and 3M exist? Why is NIST around, or Argonne, or CERN? I don't think these monolithic companies/labs grow large and then completely ossify, feeding themselves solely through acquisitions? You should check out Bell Labs especially, a longtime research area owned by various companies, responsible for such modern items as transistors and CCDs plus fundamental physics like the fractional quantum Hall effect. It's a shame Alcatel-Lucent shut down their fundamental research division considering how much came out of there. There are plenty of other examples if you would like more.
Research is not a zero-sum game. The fact that companies acquire others does not mean the big company failed, only that they saw something they needed in the smaller lab. I have never stated that a small lab could not produce useful research. I merely stated that large labs are at least as good as small labs on average. I think there is a wealth of evidence and specific examples to support that assertion, including many projects that would be outright impossible without large teams of researchers.
*edit* I should add that it might be best to split a research discussion off so as not to clog the suggestion thread, especially if we keep up the debate.
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on April 10, 2014, 04:20:05 PM
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,6948.0.html
Post by: NihilRex on April 10, 2014, 07:15:37 PM
I know LPs help with this, but I have a system with none, and the travel distance to the planets at the binary one way is 1312days at 2k speed.
This would also make binary and trinary systems more valuable in general, since they'd have more JPs in them...
I guess the hook here would be to make Survey location generation tied to stars, and not to systems...
Post by: waresky on July 30, 2014, 08:19:58 AM
Example ? : "how damned SORIUM ive been Mined in my Imperium and WHERE is for send a stupid Cargo Group and back home???"...
Ive been missed those infos...for years..:D
Post by: Haji on July 30, 2014, 11:32:48 AM
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on September 18, 2014, 01:56:48 AM
In essence they would act as if they were a planet but they are not, just a point in space intended to be used for the purpose of building a space station. This would purely be for role-play and if someone abuse it to create ammo/fuel/mineral dumps in space without ships or bases its their problem.
They could also be used to create mineral ore bases where your cargo haulers can come and drop of and pick up minerals as if it was a planet, you just place a station there with a large cargo hold to act as a midway station. You can now have a hub in system from where you distribute all the ore and are not relying on a planet or asteroid.
I just want to be able to finally build real space stations and I think this could be a simple solution to that problem.
Post by: Alfapiomega on September 18, 2014, 05:43:36 AM
I would like the option to create "fake" bodies on the map so we can place space stations in the middle of nowhere. This body would be like a stationary planet where you can not have any population and can be used to place maintenance/recreational bases and you can drop some mineral there. They could be restricted to drop minerals on them, but I don't think it is so important, abusing them would just be weird.
In essence they would act as if they were a planet but they are not, just a point in space intended to be used for the purpose of building a space station. This would purely be for role-play and if someone abuse it to create ammo/fuel/mineral dumps in space without ships or bases its their problem.
They could also be used to create mineral ore bases where your cargo haulers can come and drop of and pick up minerals as if it was a planet, you just place a station there with a large cargo hold to act as a midway station. You can now have a hub in system from where you distribute all the ore and are not relying on a planet or asteroid.
I just want to be able to finally build real space stations and I think this could be a simple solution to that problem.
I strongly support this post.
Post by: Paul M on September 18, 2014, 07:28:52 AM
Post by: alex_brunius on September 18, 2014, 07:48:48 AM
This is minor request. The little check box for "auto turns" gets a fair bit of use when the NPRs fight...I set the game for 5 min and let it auto advance. I can see when the step hits 5 min that the NPR battle is done with. The trick at that point is to click on the box to remove the checkmark...while the mouse curser is now a rotating circle with no obvious "point" to click with. Could this be turned into something more aimable to the rotating circle like button or even just a bigger check box?
Why not instead have a similar autoturn function that automatically stops when the maximum selected time increment is being applied once or twice?
Post by: Paul M on September 19, 2014, 04:03:55 AM
Why not instead have a similar autoturn function that automatically stops when the maximum selected time increment is being applied once or twice?
That would also be good...I'd love for something other than clicking, waiting and hoping the click was in the right place. I don't know about other people but the 5 min trick is how I get through NPR battles with minimal hassle. Looking at it you have enough space for a button. You could replace the Auto Turns text with it and move the text for the fixed interval to below the box.
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on January 21, 2015, 12:09:04 AM
I would simply give two allied faction some efficiency modifier and combine their forces for both offence and defence, say they operate with 80% efficiency when fighting together in an alliance. There perhaps should be a diplomatic option for ground operation agreement in addition to the normal ally agreement.
Post by: joeclark77 on September 03, 2015, 11:54:00 AM
Give us a toggle to choose whether we want ship speeds and distance measures in miles or kilometers.
Post by: swarm_sadist on October 27, 2015, 10:35:22 AM
Feature request: miles instead of kilometers.While I hate the Imperial system of measurement, it does make sense considering there is an option in the System View (F9) to convert escape velocity, temperature, diametre and distance into Imperial. It just needs to expand outside that window.
Give us a toggle to choose whether we want ship speeds and distance measures in miles or kilometers.
It would probably be impossible to do entirely, considering how much is hard-coded in metric. Steve (a Brit) would have to change everything from the design window, to the system map, all to appease the American consumers of his free game.
Post by: Norseman4 on January 11, 2016, 06:15:27 PM
Tab-stops are way out of order.
For instance on the Create New Game form, put the cursor in the Game Name textbox then hit tab, and follow the bouncing cursor.
I'm not sure about the language or the IDE that this was developed in, but Visual Studio (VS2010+ I think) gives a simple way to alter a form's tab-stops. Open a form with controls on it in VS, Then click on View / Tab Order. At this point, every control with a tab-stop has the tab-ID in blue, now just click on the controls in the order that the cursor should proceed to when you press tab. When they are in the order that you want, click on View / Tab Order again.
Post by: 22367rh on January 11, 2016, 07:44:25 PM
Quote from: Norseman4 link=topic=2828. msg84970#msg84970 date=1452557727
This is especially obvious in the game setup and game info entry forms, but seems to be present in all data entry forms.
Tab-stops are way out of order.
For instance on the Create New Game form, put the cursor in the Game Name textbox then hit tab, and follow the bouncing cursor.
I'm not sure about the language or the IDE that this was developed in, but Visual Studio (VS2010+ I think) gives a simple way to alter a form's tab-stops. Open a form with controls on it in VS, Then click on View / Tab Order. At this point, every control with a tab-stop has the tab-ID in blue, now just click on the controls in the order that the cursor should proceed to when you press tab. When they are in the order that you want, click on View / Tab Order again.
There is no easy way of doing this in the VB6 IDE from what I remember from my VB6 years.
He'd have to manually assign the order one by one for each control.
This would eat up a reasonable amount of time and am sure Steve has plenty of bugs & features that players would prefer time being spent on.
Post by: 83athom on January 11, 2016, 07:46:22 PM
This is especially obvious in the game setup and game info entry forms, but seems to be present in all data entry forms.A few things;
Tab-stops are way out of order.
For instance on the Create New Game form, put the cursor in the Game Name textbox then hit tab, and follow the bouncing cursor.
I'm not sure about the language or the IDE that this was developed in, but Visual Studio (VS2010+ I think) gives a simple way to alter a form's tab-stops. Open a form with controls on it in VS, Then click on View / Tab Order. At this point, every control with a tab-stop has the tab-ID in blue, now just click on the controls in the order that the cursor should proceed to when you press tab. When they are in the order that you want, click on View / Tab Order again.
1) I actually have no idea what you are going on about. I have been playing this for a few years and unless you actually try to brake it (like it sounds like you did) the game is very "stable" (quotation because of the inherent faults/errors in games of this magnitude).
2) The game is in 7.1 so the 5.2 suggestion thread probably wasn't the best place.
3)I believe this was made in Visual Basic. And trying to change it would require a whole rewrite of the code Steve has already spent these past YEARS making.
Post by: 22367rh on January 11, 2016, 08:00:48 PM
Quote from: 83athom link=topic=2828. msg84972#msg84972 date=1452563182
A few things;
1) I actually have no idea what you are going on about. I have been playing this for a few years and unless you actually try to brake it (like it sounds like you did) the game is very "stable" (quotation because of the inherent faults/errors in games of this magnitude).
2) The game is in 7. 1 so the 5. 2 suggestion thread probably wasn't the best place.
3)I believe this was made in Visual Basic. And trying to change it would require a whole rewrite of the code Steve has already spent these past YEARS making.
1 - he is on about how the UI tabs don't flow in a logical order which isn't a bug just more a usability thing for people who use Tab over mouse clicking into boxes.
3 - As a professional developer I can tell you that such a change wouldn't require a whole rewrite but it would be time consuming for very minimal benefit as you don't create new games all that often.
Post by: MarcAFK on January 12, 2016, 09:39:25 PM
Post by: Erik L on January 12, 2016, 09:51:50 PM