Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
21
The Academy / Re: Ranks & Promotions
« Last post by nuclearslurpee on Yesterday at 12:21:24 AM »
Quote from: Jacen on June 28, 2025, 11:55:49 PM
2. I couldn't find a specific list, but I believe it is based on either the unit size or the unit's HQ value. However, this isn't super important because you can override the default rank for a template and put whatever you want (use the "Change Rank" button). I tend to end up doing this for almost every design myself.

It is both, as far as I can tell, but the default ranks are never right and I always change them manually. I think the first few levels go something like 5,000/10,000/20,000 tons (whether size or HQ capacity), which is just silly and useless when trying to mimic any kind of real-world force structure.

For ships, the rank cannot be changed manually, aside from the "Senior Officer" check box, but fortunately the ranks are usually sensible enough that this isn't a problem.
22
The Academy / Re: Ranks & Promotions
« Last post by Jacen on June 28, 2025, 11:55:49 PM »
Answering these one at a time:

1. Check out this post for the full description of what determines the required commander rank for a ship design.

2. I couldn't find a specific list, but I believe it is based on either the unit size or the unit's HQ value. However, this isn't super important because you can override the default rank for a template and put whatever you want (use the "Change Rank" button). I tend to end up doing this for almost every design myself.

3. Promotions are done "on-demand" and promotion score is used only as a tiebreaker for multiple commanders with the same primary skill for the role seeking a promotion. Otherwise promotion score has no bearing on what rank the officer is. There is a "cooling off" period of one year between promotions, so officers will not promote multiple times in a row. See this post for details.
23
The Academy / Ranks & Promotions
« Last post by LordOther on June 28, 2025, 10:36:21 PM »
1. What determines what rank the game determines for a ship design. I have learned that certain modules will bump the top rank and will have science officer or similar of lower rank. But still is it tonnage, modules, etc.

2. What determines what rank the game determines for a ground formation. Cause I have copied a few designs from other posts on here till I better understand how the ground design works and the basic designs I've copied require my tier 3 Ground rank. I feel like I'm using wrong designs if my 2 bottom tiers are unassigned, unless they come into more use later in the game. https://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=13627.0
Like using the infantry brigade from the first reply in this uses T3 but it's supposedly the basic unit. Is it just cause it is such a big size, and if so what size corresponds to what rank.

3. What are the different promotion scores for each rank, cause I'm using medals and trying to figure out what score to give each and not wanting 1 medal to bump someone 2 ranks. And it may just be because I'm still early in the game but I have someone at Tier 5 Naval with 2.3k Promotion Score and yet my originally spawned Tier 6 Naval is only at 1.6k Promotion Score
24
Image Enhancements / Re: Ribbon Set: All 72 Medal Conditions - CSV Included v1.7
« Last post by Froggiest1982 on June 28, 2025, 09:32:03 PM »
Quote from: runawaypally on June 28, 2025, 08:34:19 PM
When attempting to use this medal .csv I get the following error upon import: 2.5.1 Function #175: D:\Aurora 4x\Medals\57.png

I have no idea what this is or how to fix it, the 57th medal image is there, and seemingly the spreadsheet properly references it. If I remove the line requiring 57, it then gives the error as 39, and so on. Something is not working as designed, and I am not smart enough to know what to do to fix it.

Upon restarting Aurora the new error I am receiving is: 2.5.1 Function #175: Input string was not in a correct format.

Seems to me you are trying to play Aurora with the wrong decimal setup.
25
Image Enhancements / Re: Ribbon Set: All 72 Medal Conditions - CSV Included v1.7
« Last post by runawaypally on June 28, 2025, 08:34:19 PM »
When attempting to use this medal .csv I get the following error upon import: 2.5.1 Function #175: D:\Aurora 4x\Medals\57.png

I have no idea what this is or how to fix it, the 57th medal image is there, and seemingly the spreadsheet properly references it. If I remove the line requiring 57, it then gives the error as 39, and so on. Something is not working as designed, and I am not smart enough to know what to do to fix it.

Upon restarting Aurora the new error I am receiving is: 2.5.1 Function #175: Input string was not in a correct format.
26
C# Bug Reports / Re: v2.5.1 Bugs Thread
« Last post by Unclemestor on June 28, 2025, 04:36:37 PM »
v2.5.1 Issue: Ground Commander Occupation Bonus is applied twice
Expected Result: Commander Occupation Bonus is applied once

Prerequisites:
[not required, but shows nothing user related should be impacting this test]
Create brand new aurora folder
Extract Aurora1130Full into folder
Extract Aurora250 into aurora folder, overwriting db and exe
Extract Aurora251 into aurora folder, overwriting exe
Default game loaded by ... default

Steps to reproduce:
Enable SM mode
instant design Unit Class PWL Infantry
instant design LVH HQ10, noncombat
[Note, any unit should do, but I'm trying to make something "real"]

Create formation template: 3312x PWL Infantry, 1x LVH 10k HQ
Put the ~10k template in an Organization, and instant org it on Earth

Expected Police Strength (No commander) using the formula (SQRT(Size) * Units * Morale) / 10000:
Units | Morale | Size | Unmodifed Police
3312100357.37
1100620.08
Actual police strength 57 == success


Now, Assign any commander with OCC bonus to the unit
Example: 30% OCC Bonus commander [COL Lorenzo Verma]

Expected Modified Police Strength (30% OCC Commander) using the formula ((SQRT(Size) * Units * Morale) / 10000) * (1 + OCC)
[Note: this is an assumption of how the formula should work but I didn't actually see it explicitly stated that this is how the Ground Commander Occupy stat is applied.]
Units | Morale | Size | Unmodifed Police | OCC Bonus | OCC Modified Police
3312100357.3730%74.58
1100620.0830%0.10
Actual police strength is shown as 97 == fail

But if you take the expected result, and multiply it by 1.3 again, you get 97.084.

Assigning different OCC strength commanders displays consistent results to indicate that the OCC bonus is applied multiplicatively twice, so instead of [Base Police Strength] * (1+ [OCC]), it appears to be [Base Police Strength] * (1+[OCC]) * (1+[OCC]).
27
C# Suggestions / Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.4.0
« Last post by nuclearslurpee on June 28, 2025, 10:19:29 AM »
Quote from: skoormit on June 28, 2025, 09:41:56 AM
Quote from: SevenOfCarina on June 28, 2025, 08:50:45 AM

There's already a very strong incentive to move production facilities to smaller colonies, because smaller colonies give you the greatest manufacturing bang for your population buck. I don't see how this would make things worse given the other incentives for spreading out industry (mineral resources, proximity to mining sites, local fleet logistics) still exist, and it's not like financial centres are very good anyway (the consensus advice has always been that you're much better off just relying on taxing civilian shipping). Plus given typical homeworld population sizes, I don't think this should be a problem unless you have thousands of financial centres, in which case, why?

If you think financial centers aren't any good, we clearly follow very different approaches to economic growth.
For any given play style that minimizes the use of financial centers, my observation above is moot.

For my play style, which pursues very aggressive economic growth, financial centers are the best investment available in the game (with the arguable exception of terraforming).

I don't think I've ever heard anyone express the opinion that "you're much better off just relying on taxing civilian shipping."
That seems to imply that players make a choice between increasing civ tax income or building financial centers.
But pursuing either one does not reduce the opportunity to pursue the other.


EDIT:
And in fact I have ~1500 financial centers in my current game, with a total population of ~2.5b.
Why? Because I need the income. I always want to build more stuff, and building financial centers increases my income faster than anything else, which then allows me to build more stuff.

Seconded. I've found financial centers usually quite necessary at least in the early game.

In the current late game with 1000s of civilians, maybe not, but with the changes to civilians in 2.6 I think financial centers will remain useful into the later stages.
28
C# Suggestions / Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.4.0
« Last post by skoormit on June 28, 2025, 09:41:56 AM »
Quote from: SevenOfCarina on June 28, 2025, 08:50:45 AM

There's already a very strong incentive to move production facilities to smaller colonies, because smaller colonies give you the greatest manufacturing bang for your population buck. I don't see how this would make things worse given the other incentives for spreading out industry (mineral resources, proximity to mining sites, local fleet logistics) still exist, and it's not like financial centres are very good anyway (the consensus advice has always been that you're much better off just relying on taxing civilian shipping). Plus given typical homeworld population sizes, I don't think this should be a problem unless you have thousands of financial centres, in which case, why?

If you think financial centers aren't any good, we clearly follow very different approaches to economic growth.
For any given play style that minimizes the use of financial centers, my observation above is moot.

For my play style, which pursues very aggressive economic growth, financial centers are the best investment available in the game (with the arguable exception of terraforming).

I don't think I've ever heard anyone express the opinion that "you're much better off just relying on taxing civilian shipping."
That seems to imply that players make a choice between increasing civ tax income or building financial centers.
But pursuing either one does not reduce the opportunity to pursue the other.


EDIT:
And in fact I have ~1500 financial centers in my current game, with a total population of ~2.5b.
Why? Because I need the income. I always want to build more stuff, and building financial centers increases my income faster than anything else, which then allows me to build more stuff.
29
C# Suggestions / Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.4.0
« Last post by SevenOfCarina on June 28, 2025, 08:50:45 AM »
Quote from: skoormit on June 28, 2025, 07:28:19 AM
It's an interesting idea, but there is one side-effect I don't think we will like.
Higher population colonies will have a greater wealth multiplier than smaller colonies.
Therefore when we spread out population (which we still will do as much as possible, because population growth remains the long-term economic bottleneck), we will be incentivized to leave financial centers on the homeworld (and/or our largest other colonies), and move actual production facilities to smaller colonies.
This requires us to manage production and logistics across many smaller colonies.
Our current system doesn't penalize us for focusing smaller colonies on financial production, which means we don't have to choose between optimizing income and reducing logistical complexity.

There's already a very strong incentive to move production facilities to smaller colonies, because smaller colonies give you the greatest manufacturing bang for your population buck. I don't see how this would make things worse given the other incentives for spreading out industry (mineral resources, proximity to mining sites, local fleet logistics) still exist, and it's not like financial centres are very good anyway (the consensus advice has always been that you're much better off just relying on taxing civilian shipping). Plus given typical homeworld population sizes, I don't think this should be a problem unless you have thousands of financial centres, in which case, why?
30
C# Suggestions / Ground Unit Retargetting Chance
« Last post by ty55101 on June 28, 2025, 08:25:24 AM »
Ground units should get a chance to retarget the formation they attacked in the last ground combat round.

I have heard sentiment from a lot of players that they wish ground combat was more involved and then some people saying that they don't want to spend more time on it.

If Ground Units were to have a decent chance to retarget the same formation (25-50%) then it would allow players to change artillery and ship based support to have a decent chance of damaging certain formations. It would give an incentive for smaller recon formations to locate high value targets and "call in" artillery strikes. Taking STOs out with a smaller landing force in order for slower and less armored troop transports would also become more viable.

This gives an optional added layer to ground combat meaning that some players get the added layer while others can interact with the game in the exact same way.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk