Author Topic: v2.6.0 Changes Discussion Thread  (Read 15392 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline nakorkren

  • Commander
  • *********
  • n
  • Posts: 328
  • Thanked: 276 times
Re: v2.6.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #75 on: October 01, 2024, 09:06:52 AM »
Quote
The treeview nodes for Naval Admin Commands retain their expanded or closed status on save.

Does this mean that it will remember status only when you save the game? Will the status still reset when you toggle on/off the "Show Elements" option or other options?

Also, can we please also have this for the Ground OOB window? That was actually the tree I was hoping to have the change made to, although I realize now that I didn't make that clear in the suggestion thread.
 

Offline Barkhorn

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 729
  • Thanked: 135 times
Re: v2.6.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #76 on: October 01, 2024, 11:28:26 AM »
Reading the change about alien missiles has me wondering; realistically, shouldn't missiles be limited to being launched from specific launcher designs?  I mean, you can't put an M1 bazooka rocket in a 60mm mortar and expect it to work, even though the M1 rocket will fit.  It seems like you should have to design rockets to match launchers in a similar way to how we can tool shipyards to build multiple similar classes; different missile classes can only be launched from the same launcher if they're really similar.
 

Offline Alsadius

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 212
  • Thanked: 118 times
Re: v2.6.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #77 on: October 01, 2024, 12:21:27 PM »
Reading the change about alien missiles has me wondering; realistically, shouldn't missiles be limited to being launched from specific launcher designs?  I mean, you can't put an M1 bazooka rocket in a 60mm mortar and expect it to work, even though the M1 rocket will fit.  It seems like you should have to design rockets to match launchers in a similar way to how we can tool shipyards to build multiple similar classes; different missile classes can only be launched from the same launcher if they're really similar.

That just sounds like way too much of a headache to me.

Offline nakorkren

  • Commander
  • *********
  • n
  • Posts: 328
  • Thanked: 276 times
Re: v2.6.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #78 on: October 01, 2024, 12:34:08 PM »
Reading the change about alien missiles has me wondering; realistically, shouldn't missiles be limited to being launched from specific launcher designs?  I mean, you can't put an M1 bazooka rocket in a 60mm mortar and expect it to work, even though the M1 rocket will fit.  It seems like you should have to design rockets to match launchers in a similar way to how we can tool shipyards to build multiple similar classes; different missile classes can only be launched from the same launcher if they're really similar.

Launcher size is the only limiting factor in Aurora, i.e. the launcher must be large enough. Yes, in the real world launchers are typically designed to launch a specific missile, or in rare cases a small set of missiles. Would adding that restriction add interesting gameplay choices, or just more work?
 

Offline Louella

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • L
  • Posts: 65
  • Thanked: 131 times
Re: v2.6.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #79 on: October 01, 2024, 01:34:47 PM »
Maybe at some point in the future, I will add organic ships as a technology option.

That'd certainly be something to add to the biology/genetics science division, heh.
 

Offline ty55101

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • t
  • Posts: 77
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • Discord Username: Albino Elephant
Re: v2.6.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #80 on: October 01, 2024, 01:48:15 PM »
Would adding that restriction add interesting gameplay choices, or just more work?

Both. I think it would be an interesting choice of having to recondition missiles to your missile launchers at an ordinance factory. It would add a little more micro to the game for, in my opinion, a proportionate amount of interesting gameplay. Now, when you consider the fact that it would have to be built into the industry tab with some type of popup most likely and it isn't exactly the easiest implementation then I don't think it would really be worth looking into.
 

Offline nakorkren

  • Commander
  • *********
  • n
  • Posts: 328
  • Thanked: 276 times
Re: v2.6.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #81 on: October 01, 2024, 04:29:59 PM »
Will the "Add replacement crew" command be an option between ships? Or maybe an equivalent "Transfer prize crew"? Otherwise you have no way to add a prize crew, unless perhaps the boarding crew counts toward the manning requirement?
 

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11933
  • Thanked: 22042 times
Re: v2.6.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #82 on: October 01, 2024, 05:42:48 PM »
Will the "Add replacement crew" command be an option between ships? Or maybe an equivalent "Transfer prize crew"? Otherwise you have no way to add a prize crew, unless perhaps the boarding crew counts toward the manning requirement?

No that won't be available, as it would invalidate the need for the 1m pop. The 'prize crew' is effectively free, but only counts as 1 effective crewman.
 

Offline nakorkren

  • Commander
  • *********
  • n
  • Posts: 328
  • Thanked: 276 times
Re: v2.6.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #83 on: October 01, 2024, 05:55:48 PM »
Quote
No that won't be available, as it would invalidate the need for the 1m pop. The 'prize crew' is effectively free, but only counts as 1 effective crewman.

I'm not assuming we'd create prize crew out of thin air, I was envisioning that we'd transfer X of our crew from our original ship(s) to the captured ship, reducing the remaining crew on the giving ship(s), the way prize crews are/were sourced in real life. That doesn't obviate the need for a 1M pop colony to replace the missing crew, it's now just on two ships instead of one. With a largish fleet each ship gives up say 20 crew and now you have a decent prize crew for the captured frigate, etc etc.

Maybe more trouble than it's worth I guess.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11933
  • Thanked: 22042 times
Re: v2.6.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #84 on: October 02, 2024, 03:52:53 AM »
Quote
No that won't be available, as it would invalidate the need for the 1m pop. The 'prize crew' is effectively free, but only counts as 1 effective crewman.

I'm not assuming we'd create prize crew out of thin air, I was envisioning that we'd transfer X of our crew from our original ship(s) to the captured ship, reducing the remaining crew on the giving ship(s), the way prize crews are/were sourced in real life. That doesn't obviate the need for a 1M pop colony to replace the missing crew, it's now just on two ships instead of one. With a largish fleet each ship gives up say 20 crew and now you have a decent prize crew for the captured frigate, etc etc.

Maybe more trouble than it's worth I guess.

It a gameplay issue, rather than a mechanics issue. I am trying to simulate the fact you can't just capture an alien ship and immediately get it functional by transferring a crew on board. It has been like that until now in Aurora - as it was immediately fully crewed - but I am trying to make it more challenging to put captured ships into service. The mechanics assume you put some crew aboard (effectively for free), but they are just about capable of eventually getting the ship to a colony where it can be properly examined, which is why the captured ship behaves as 'effectively' uncrewed until that happens.
 

Offline clew

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • c
  • Posts: 15
  • Thanked: 6 times
Re: v2.6.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #85 on: October 02, 2024, 03:31:47 PM »
Quote
No that won't be available, as it would invalidate the need for the 1m pop. The 'prize crew' is effectively free, but only counts as 1 effective crewman.

I'm not assuming we'd create prize crew out of thin air, I was envisioning that we'd transfer X of our crew from our original ship(s) to the captured ship, reducing the remaining crew on the giving ship(s), the way prize crews are/were sourced in real life. That doesn't obviate the need for a 1M pop colony to replace the missing crew, it's now just on two ships instead of one. With a largish fleet each ship gives up say 20 crew and now you have a decent prize crew for the captured frigate, etc etc.

Maybe more trouble than it's worth I guess.

It a gameplay issue, rather than a mechanics issue. I am trying to simulate the fact you can't just capture an alien ship and immediately get it functional by transferring a crew on board. It has been like that until now in Aurora - as it was immediately fully crewed - but I am trying to make it more challenging to put captured ships into service. The mechanics assume you put some crew aboard (effectively for free), but they are just about capable of eventually getting the ship to a colony where it can be properly examined, which is why the captured ship behaves as 'effectively' uncrewed until that happens.

Won't this just lead to captured ships just falling apart before you have the ability to tug or transfer them to a suitable colony?
 

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11933
  • Thanked: 22042 times
Re: v2.6.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #86 on: October 02, 2024, 03:58:09 PM »
Quote
It a gameplay issue, rather than a mechanics issue. I am trying to simulate the fact you can't just capture an alien ship and immediately get it functional by transferring a crew on board. It has been like that until now in Aurora - as it was immediately fully crewed - but I am trying to make it more challenging to put captured ships into service. The mechanics assume you put some crew aboard (effectively for free), but they are just about capable of eventually getting the ship to a colony where it can be properly examined, which is why the captured ship behaves as 'effectively' uncrewed until that happens.

Won't this just lead to captured ships just falling apart before you have the ability to tug or transfer them to a suitable colony?

No, because the penalty is to deployment time, not the maintenance clock.
 

Offline Aloriel

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 194
  • Thanked: 95 times
Re: v2.6.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #87 on: October 05, 2024, 09:53:53 AM »
 With regards to players building shield ships that are just for ramming, perhaps make it such that shields have zero protection against ramming, or that they take 10x damage from a ram? This would keep players from exploiting it much. Any ship that rams and survives needs to return to a shipyard to get armor repairs.
Sarah
Game Developer in Unity and UE4 and 5
 

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11933
  • Thanked: 22042 times
Re: v2.6.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #88 on: October 06, 2024, 04:55:16 AM »
With regards to players building shield ships that are just for ramming, perhaps make it such that shields have zero protection against ramming, or that they take 10x damage from a ram? This would keep players from exploiting it much. Any ship that rams and survives needs to return to a shipyard to get armor repairs.

I considered exactly that - with some accompanying technobabble about how shields aren't designed to stop physical objects. Then I realised that railgun rounds are effectively physical, so that leads to 'shields are designed to cope with large physical objects'. At that point someone will want to know 'how large', and then we end up in debate about how big you need a railgun round to be to defeat shields :)

Maybe I can do both - some form of large shield-damaging weapon and ramming rules that negate shields to some degree, but I need to think about it for a while.
 

Offline ty55101

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • t
  • Posts: 77
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • Discord Username: Albino Elephant
Re: v2.6.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #89 on: October 06, 2024, 11:08:51 AM »
I considered exactly that - with some
accompanying technobabble about how shields aren't designed to stop physical objects. Then I realised that railgun rounds are effectively physical, so that leads to 'shields are designed to cope with large physical objects'. At that point someone will want to know 'how large', and then we end up in debate about how big you need a railgun round to be to defeat shields :)

Maybe I can do both - some form of large shield-damaging weapon and ramming rules that negate shields to some degree, but I need to think about it for a while.

It could also have to do with the speed of the object as well. Shields might operate based on kinetic energy and disperse the kinetic energy from missiles and railguns while a ship itself doesn't travel fast enough to engage the dispersion of the kinetic energy (or maybe they do but with the mass of the ship it isn't torn apart. It could also be a ratio of kinetic energy to mass with anything being able to do damage without the shield engaging would have to be such a large mass that it is basically a ship already.