To say before I write my reply, that is completely understandable especially since this is your game and Your Enjoyment, thankfully it was purely a suggestion with a point I wish to bring up from my point of view
Iâve played a fair few campaigns, most of them with my 2 friends sending the save to eachother every 5 in-game years (Both being very into navy stuff, one being a big nerd in US Navy history), in most of our campaigns weâve usually had about 150-200x Destroyers total in about 3-4 fleets depending on the galactic map situation, so our fleets normally have 5-10 BBs (Or 5-10x BCs), 15-20 CLs, 30-50 DDs each (variant depending on shipyard, refit and whatnot)
(A big thing we always run into is lacking fuel due to how large of a navy we always construct, but we try to always do real life organization into the game as weâre quite big into it)
The game we did in 2.5.1 we had 4x Main Fleets that were positions on 4 main access route to SOL, to react to NPRâs forces by being nearby, with a few smaller patrol squadrons escorting or stationed in readiness to handle Raiders or simply recon-in-force through gates.
Also just simply wish to see the more higher ranks used more than purely administration work, but weâll make due and thank you for taking the suggestion seriously and giving a good respond back
I guess now that I think about it, a small thing Iâd like to ask if it is at all possible or meaningful (You can simply say no, my mind thought of the idea suddenly while taking a shower)
Could the restriction of NAC Flag Bridge Subordinates restriction be lifted?
As you wrote in a previous patch note regarding NACs with Flag Bridges
They cannot have subordinate commands. This is checked on creation, update, drag-drop, etc.
Could this be lifted or changed a bit? This way a method that could be used is simply make x amount of NACs under the âMain Fleet NACâ that can âactâ as Subfleet Commanders, so youâd have the NAC for the actual Fleet, and under youâd have for an example 10 NACs with their own flag bridges. They wonât give bonuses to their Subfleet or squadrons, but at the very least the assigned officer would be on the ship and can be killed, ejected, captured or rescued?
Flag bridges are a 250-ton, 125 BP component. They arenât intended to have similar capabilities to a 250,000 ton, 1200 BP surface-based installation. That is why they are restricted to zero radius and no sub-commands.
The admin command mechanic for flag bridges is to allow players to have their flag officers with the fleet, mainly for RP reasons, while maintaining the benefits of an admin command hierarchy. Flag bridges are not intended to be mobile naval HQs.
And to forestall your potential next question, I have no plans to create âsuper flag bridgesâ that have greater capability. At this point, I really need to move to other mechanics.
On the topic of admirals and squadrons, I will just say that part of the reason we historically saw the rear, vice, and full admiral commanding distinct squadrons was because these squadrons were separated in space and, for much of history, time (as far as communications go). In Aurora, fleets are usually all in the same place and communication, thus command & control, is effectively instantaneous, so there is less need to distribute valuable admirals across the actual fleet.
So I think the current mechanic works fine. The motivation for the Flag Bridge change was because the old mechanic was nearly useless, partially because the Reaction bonus was usually superfluous and partially because it didnât give any bonuses for, e.g., detached squadrons or fighter wings. The new mechanic solves those problems.
Yes this is very helpful for even a medium sized empire. The only thing that jumped out was
RES: Resupply capability
I canât tell if this is talking about the order âResupply at Xâ OR the ability to transfer cargo via a spaceport or the cargo shuttle station installation.
If it is the latter, should probably be changed to
CAR: Cargo Handling capability
To better match the verbiage used on the summary screen, the installation, and ship design screen.
It means you can load or unload maintenance supplies at that colony, using orders like Resupply, Replenish, Transfer Maint to Colony, etc.. I have changed the text to be more explicit.
It seems to me that this is a VERY unreliable solution, and it would be much better to create an Interrupt event when a working scientist dies.
In addition to the possibility of missing this event due to the large number of other 5-day events (deaths, medals, experience), you can miss it by simply going to make tea. For example, when some events are not expected for a long time, and you want to wait for the end of the research. Which will not happen.
Moreover, in long sessions (at least for me), the game is busy with some calculations for quite a long time, and the 5 Days turn sometimes takes about 5 minutes (up to 1 year per 6 hours, but itâs usually faster). I donât want to spend hours watching the long turns, just to make sure my labs still working.
There isnât an ideal solution. If unassigned labs is an interrupt, it will be annoying in âno research gamesâ. If it isnât an interrupt, then players in normal games will potentially miss a few construction phases of research.
I could potentially make it non-interrupt in âno researchâ games only, or return it to being an interrupt and just not generate the event in âno researchâ - I think the latter is a better option.
In the new economics window, would it be possible to use other colors for MSP and fuel values with respect to the colonies reserve level that we can now set?
It might be useful in cases where the player has set a single warning and its been a while. I was thinking cyan if under and green if above.
Alternatively, it would be nice to just have extra columns for that so we can set the reserves in that screen as well with all the colonies on the screen.
Adding new columns would also allow you to implement the above colour suggestion on those columns without conflicting with the colour coding that has already been added.
Yes, performance speed and graphics smoothness have both improved a lot for the Galactic Map in v2.8. It used to take about 10 seconds to load the map (I have 220 systems) before I could even move it. Now itâs about 2 seconds and it looks much smoother.
I have to say, Iâm really looking forward to this new update, not only due to the new features but also because with the new forum I started reading some of the AARs, which gave me ideas for new strategies and features to try out in my next run (I never used stations, always relied on surface terraforming stations, and never used sensory buoys in my previous runs for example).
Especially the new features around Aether Gates sound interesting.
Steve with all those amazing map changes would you consider adding some qol changes that would make searching the map faster and easier?
Stuff like: centering map on current system, quick search shortcut, partial search, case-insensitive search.
Right now, when you have 100+ systems and your play sessions are relatively short, sometimes it is really hard to remember where some systems are and therefore itâs hard to figure out what is going on in your game.
Normally, Iâm much more excited about gameplay updates than aesthetic ones, but now Iâm looking forward to someday seeing faux-handwritten script fonts over sepia background maps in an AAR that explores the space race between the Republic of Venice and the Republic of Genoa.
