I’d like to be able to disable the interrupt for the Hostile Contact Update event on a system by system basis.
I often park small scouts near JPs in systems controlled by a hostile NPR.
This causes an interrupt every time a ship of theirs transits that JP.
This can be a dozen interrupts per day for a busy system.
My only way to avoid this now is to make the NPR neutral, or (in 3.0) to disable the interrupt for the Hostile Contact Update event.
But I still want an interrupt if a fleet for this NPR shows up in other systems.
So maybe a checkbox on the Miscellaneous tab of the Galactic Map?
(It would be nice if I could toggle the setting individually for each NPR in each system, but that’s probably ten times the coding effort.)
SJW: I’ve added it at the NPR/system level. You can set it in the same place as protection status on the Known System tab of the Intelligence window.
Would it be possible to have a show grid check on the 2D Galaxy map? It can sometimes be a bit fiddly to align star systems to an invisible grid (I think VB6 had this?)
Move Mass column left on the System Display table, somewhere between Gravity and Tidal Lock, and move Terrain further right to get the place for Mass column.
The reason is - Terrain parameter is rarely used in the system view specifically, while Mass is quite common to check on the run which Lagrange points to stabilize first to achieve effect quicker.
An alternative suggestion (even more useful in this case, yet probably a bit more complicated in realization) is to add text labels of the planet masses to the list of planets on the Movement Orders panel when the Fleet (Group) is capable of stabilizing JPs.
The far right column on the system view is LG Time, which is the number of years required to stabilise a jump point on that body. That is more useful for this purposes than mass. However, terrain, while not immediately mechanically-relevant, does add flavour to the system view, so I don’t want to move it out of sight, especially with the expanded terrain list in v3.0.
However, I do like the idea of putting the LG stabilisation time on the destination list in the Fleet window for stabilisation ships.
I’d like to see this too. Or maybe just have an adjustable grid size? I’ve spent more time than I’d care to admit trying to get things lined up juuuuuust right.
Since Electronic Hardening no longer increases the cost of a component, couldn’t this technology be automatically applied to all components? I suppose it would be easier than creating a separate tab for designing Jammers.
I would like to be able to protect Jammers from HPM (first of all, to allow NPRs to do this, primarily for the new “No Shields” game option), because one hit is guaranteed to destroy the Jammer.
An option for “Commercial Ships Require Maintenance” akin to the “No Maintenance Required” option. When enabled, the maintenance clock will tick for commercial ships, and they will consume MSP similar to military ships, as well as experience component failures, albeit at a reduced rate compared to military ships (say, at 1/3 or even 1/10th the rate?) If going the reduced maintenance route, and accompanying option for commercial ships to experience “full maintenance” should be considered. This option will do nothing except give players more things to worry about
Make Ultra-Heavy vehicles be able to be equipped with a single STO weapon. More of a “rule of cool” option than anything else. Still, the visual of a giant mech engaging ground forces while its giant back-mounted laser blasts enemy ships out of orbit is fun to think about
SJW: Early versions of Aurora had all ships requiring maintenance. However, because commercial shipping tends to be very active, it created a large micromanagement overhead. Restricting that to the military shipping meant players still had meaningful logistical decisions about the most important ships, while minimizing micromanagement of the much larger commercial shipping sector.
In the Commanders window the number of officers under a specific rank in Naval and Ground Force categories is shown in parenthesis, but not so in Scientists and Administrators. Could that be extended to those categories?
STO also requires installation of a reactor and Fire Control. If reactor is not such a problem, then FC often becomes a very expensive component.
Maybe add a new component for ground forces, “Small STO Weapon”? 50t (16.6% accuracy) Gauss Cannon, with a range of 1000 km and a rate of fire of 1 shot in 5 seconds. It is set to Ultra-Heavy and Static.
Due to the low range, this will not be able to replace normal STO weapons, but it will be able to provide minimal colony defense if you don’t have anything else.
Add a Research Project named something like “Free Search” with 1 RL fixed, avilable in every field.
Make it either doing nothing or resulting in some small (about 1/5th of the normal effectiveness) results at random projects, sometimes even in other fields of research.
The reason:
We actually do train young and prominent scientists by sitting them with 1 lab at the less useful projects, yet there is a deficit of projects available at some fields and it’s a bit tedious to switch between these projects again and again. Would be nice to have a feature to do it with the necessary minimum of clicks, even if it would do nothing immedietely useful.
I like the idea of a “I don’t care what you’re doing, just keep yourself busy” command. But I think it should either give the full output of the labs, or provide a significant boost to scientist training. I feel like the research not being focused on the techs you want is already enough of a downside if the command is just reducing micromanagement.
Hello. To my understanding AFR/IFR and overall maintenance/failure issue is simply the amount of engineering spaces vs components. But since we are (mostly) designing our own components - is it possible to make them matter? Like.. at the level of designing them, make them less, or more reliable at the cost of for example, efficiency, size, cost?
Imagine: My X engine is 80% reliable by default, so I up the cost of production by 10% to get additional 5%?
It’s my “loose idea”. Idk how hard that would be to implement, nor what would be the proper math behind it.
If you drop the power boost to 50% or lower, it becomes completely reliable. Other boosts have different costs, so when the engine does fail it costs less to fix. You are effectively making the engine cost less to maintain by reducing its power output.
What you describe is something tied to the power boost as the results of it. I meant it as another mechanic/aspect of the component. Something more close to the real world, where “forcing more power,” ofc might decrease reliability of the (for example) engine, but aspects like design, materials, and manufacturing quality also matter.
So, reliability as it’s own mechanic in component designing. Maybe something like this:
As in the picture, everything is tied to each other; changing one value affects the other two. It’s either the right balance or sacrificing one aspect for another - Specialization.
This is closer to reality, because currently reliability is a threshold; it either exists or doesn’t. And later is dealt with tons of engineering spaces. Maybe adding it after the threshold would fit the game better.
But that might be “too bothersome” for such an already complex game. And in the end it’s up to the mighty Steve if it fits his vision of the game.
Actually this is a good question - Yes a military ship with a commercial engine will still have maintenance events, but will the engine itself suffer malfunctions in this case?
If the answer is yes, the commercial engine will have failures, I would suggest that maybe it doesn’t since it’s a commercial component. Might make it an interesting idea to try to make it work for certain military ships.
