In the Galactic Map, in the Icon Display tab, when we select a race to show, I think it would be useful to have a list of the systems that are flagged in the map.
And double click on a listed system could open it in the tactical map.
Showing what systems have ground units in the galaxy map would also be useful for reminding you that you left a survey team on some distant planet.
Quick Suggestion. I really spend a lot of time on my galatic maps putting notes, arranging and grouping systems, and other stuff - I strongly suspect a lot of players do so. Is it possible to add a square/rectange shape tool so I can draw a rectangle around a group of systems?
1 Like
âAuto-assign fire supportâ button for selected ground forces, if that isnât already in the works that is. Love making realistic military forces in Aurora, which means a whole lot of artillery in separate formations.
2 Likes
Add Electronic Hardening column to sensors and FCs in View Technology window.
1 Like
When refitting ships. If the shipyard performing the refit can build both ships. I.e. the two designs are similar. Then the refit recovers intact components.
Otherwise, if the ship is too different, then refits will not recover old components.
A player could theoretically setup multiple shipyards and retool them and have a bunch of different intermediate designs to try and recover many components, but that has significant shipyard costs. Not to mention, if a player is willing to put the effort in to do that, then more power to you. At that point, it might even just be cheaper to scrap and rebuild.
SJW: There have been many threads on this topic. You donât recover components from refits.
Add a fire control in the ship combat screen called âlocal fire controlâ on all military ships.
Each direct fire weapon features a free local fire control that has range equal to the racial fire control range, and 1/4 of the racial fire control speed rating, or 1/4 of the racial fire control range and speed rating equal to the racial fire control speed rating.
Only direct fire weapons can use âlocal fire control;â missiles cannot. Each weapon assigned to âlocal fire controlâ will only perform individially targeted fire-at-will and cannot be manually assigned targets. Rapid fire weapons will only perform self-only final defensive fire when on local fire control. Local fire control still requires active sensor contacts to fire. Local fire control cannot benifit from officer bonuses.
SJW: There is already an option in the game for single-weapon fire controls. You can design them and add to the ship.
Deciding on the appropriate number and type of fire controls is part of ship design.
I have three suggestions:
- Templates for civilian cargo contracts. A button to save a current demand or supply as a template, and a possibility to add that template onto the demand or supply.
- A possibility to have an interrupt each year/decade. I try to regularly reorder my research, ground survey teams, orders for my freighter fleets etc., and a regular interrupt would help with that.
- If a formation is infantry only, enable unloading off of ships without a troop transport bay. Currently I SM-edit the captured class, get my troops off, and re-edit it back.
SJW: Ships larger than 1000 tons canât land, so the bay includes transport to the surface.
Why donât you just add a smaller FC to the ships?
A lot of players use âtimerâ ships. Itâs just the smallest possible commercial ship, and is used only for delayed Send Message orders. You donât have to build theseâjust use SM mode to create them as needed. I put them in orbit of a remote body of the home system, to avoid visual clutter around the homeworld.
They are very useful for reminders to do stuff, both periodical and one-off. Hereâs the orders for my annual timer:
Yes, but captured ships often donât have a troop bay.
Weapons have higher HTK than fire controls. Weapons can also have additional armor added. Weapons are immune to HPM.
With recent nerfs to HPM due to free electronic hardening, this would further nerf them by making ships always be able to fire back a little bit even when their main fire controls are destroyed. We might be able to start thinking about increasing the damage of HMP, or even thinking about EMP missiles to counter shields.
Furthermore, certain fighter and FAC roles may end up not needing a dedicated fire control, I think thats an interesting possibility.
Yes, I know. I always get the original boarding craft to load the boarding forces once they capture the ship.
2 Likes
Speaking ofâŚcould we get the âLoad Assigned Ground Templatesâ order to work when targeting a fleet, instead of only when targeting a colony?
I attack with swarms of boarding pods carrying 100t boarding formations. Giving manual orders to load each individual formation from the captured ship is painful.
2 Likes
If you want to suggest some additional âHPM nerfâ, I can understand your point. HPM is a very powerful weapon against capital ships, when you or your opponent donât have shields.
But it seems to me that such an âinvulnerable FCâ can greatly affect the balance in the game. For example, you will not need to add FC to a fighter, and they will be invulnerable to HPM, since all sensors are usually located on a separate ship, avoiding combat.
I would suggest adding some cheap component with 1 HTK and a size of, for example, 300 tons. Such a component will be the target of the HPM, so you can add some additional protection to large ships so that the HPM does not damage sensors, FC and Jammers, but this cheap component. Or something like that.
I see your point about the invulnerable FC. It may not be balanced. But it might be fine if its much weaker (Shorter range and slower speed) than dedicated fire controls. It could be justified by saying that they are lower tech and hardened more.
I think fighters and FACs are vulnerable enough to regular direct weapons fire that having them be immune to HPM isnt much of an issue⌠fighters are usually quite expensive anyway right? Cause theyâre mainly engines.
This is a compliment to my âDamage control Expansionâ suggestion tbh. I didnt wanna make edits or keep replying in that thread.
Rather than the various options to show passive sensors on the tactical map at 10/100/1000 strength, could we get an option to specify the min and max value to display and how many increments in between? That way you could enter 0, 1000, and 5, and it would show five values between 0 and 1000. Or you could enter 0, 1000, 0, and it would just show 1000. Or you could enter 100, 200, and 1, and it would show at 100, 150, 200, etc. This would be helpful when you know something about the strength of the signatures of your enemy, or if you know their sensor capability and youâre trying to sneak up on them.
6 Likes
UI idea for tactical map: Create 10 hotkey buttons on the side of the tactical map and allow the user to assign each one to a specific system of interest. Long click (click and hold for 2 sec) on button sets your current view (system, position and zoom within the system) to that button and renames the button to that systemâs name. Normal click takes you to that view.
Would dramatically reduce the use of the dropdown selection box to find your frequently checked systems, which is a pain once you have lots of explored systems in the list.
5 Likes
When a squadron transit is performed by a fleet, prevent squadron transits by any other races with that jump points for a while.
This is to prevent comedy situations where you squadron jump in with all your fleets, and then the enemy simply going behind you into the Jump point you just came from.
I had a certain spoiler race do this to me recently.
That isnât comedy - its a legitimate tactic. You need to leave forces in the original system to counter it. As I have said in other threads, the game has to be internally consistent.
You canât have âmagicâ rules, so the only way to handle this would be to âdestabilizeâ a jump point for a while depending on the tonnage that transited. I have considered this in the past, but it adds too much player micromanagement and extra AI code for minimal gameplay differences.
3 Likes