Re: Patch wishlist
 

Ha ha ha! My wife would agree with your's very much!

Of course, they seem to have lots in common already - they both married Luke's.

Visit the Spoogy Federation: http://spoogyfederation.tripod.com


[This message has been edited by capt_spoogy (edited 11 April 2001).]

Re: Patch wishlist
 

More warp point manipulation...
create a lower level WP creator which creates unstable or dangerous types of points.

Space monsters as in MOO

More control over AI - replace some of the hardcoded decisions with true scripts

Re: Patch wishlist
 

Here's another idea: It annoys me that once I buy / conquer an alien population they immediately lose all their racial traits - Just because they have a new leader they suddenly become more stupid, or quicker at reproduction - It makes no sense.

I would love to assign Drushocka population to one planet because they are good at mineral mining, and my native population to a research world because they are good at that, and so on.

The problem would be when mixing populations on a planet, but I'm sure you could get round that by calculating averages according to the amount of each popultion present on a planet.

------------------
There is an exception to every rule. Including this one.

Re: Patch wishlist
 

Being able to have planet names above or below planet capability where it doesn't cover over the use of S,Y, R, etc. In my game they cover over and makes hard to read.

just an idea mac

Re: Patch wishlist
 

My ususal suspects:
1. Improve AI offensive strategy: follow through on successful attack. Current AI makes an attack or two, then leaves the player plenty of time to recover and regroup
2. Improve AI use of fleets. Current AI still uses too small fleets and too many single ships (closely related to 3.)
3. Improve AI offensive/defensive strategy: do not repetitively send ships to their doom. Current AI sends ships/ small fleets which are hopelessly outnumbered repetitively into the reach of my superior fleet (where they are destroyed each time)
4. Improve diplomacy. Current AI does not account for situational factors (e.g. number of other player's ships threatening its planets when the other player demands surrender/subjugation/protectorate). Current AI randomly changes its moods. Current AI does not act according to its mood (murderous allies and brotherly ennemies). Current AI does not actively propose all treaties.

[This message has been edited by jowe01 (edited 11 April 2001).]

Re: Patch wishlist
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark Walton:
More warp point manipulation...
create a lower level WP creator which creates unstable or dangerous types of points.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or how about a HIGHER level WP creator that can change a normal warp point to a damaging one and/or change damaging warp points to a normal one.

Re: Patch wishlist
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>3) What about introducing non-static backdrops. E.g. if you fight in an asteroid field what about having asteroids moving around you as you fight?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If we can't have moving asteroids, at least have asteroids actually affect combat (i.e., damaging ships, reducing "to-hit" chances, etc.).

Re: Patch wishlist
 

That would be cool. Hide behind an asteriod. Actually it would be nice if planets could block or reduce the effectivness of fire.

Re: Patch wishlist
 

I would like to see a mine replicating tech that I can put on a mine and tell it to keep my mine field at say 20 mines. So if a mine field is sweeped but all the mines are not removed on the end of the owner's turn the mine replicator will see that there is say 5 mines left, it will copy each one in seq. until the field is back to 20 mines. If no mines are left then the replicating mine will go inactive. since the replicating mine can not be sweeped. But can be distroyed by direct fire. So a ship that enters the sector could use combat to seek out and distroy it.
A field would have to be set up before activing the replicator, since this is what would determine the size of the field for the replicator. It would take the replicator say 1-2 turns to rebuild the field.


I would like the AI to follow their actions. They send me an acceptance to end a war with another AI and they do not do it. They send that they will attck xyz planet for me and they do not do it.


[This message has been edited by Dracus (edited 11 April 2001).]

Re: Patch wishlist
 

More wishes (some of them already mentioned, but repetition may enhance the probabilty to be heard):

- AI proposes trades especially if he needs special resources.

- AI uses resource converters.

- AI Fleet design file to instruct the AI the ship types and numbers that should be included in a special fleet type (attack fleet, defence fleets, capture planet fleet etc. ).

- In the AI Design Construction Vehicles file a line which instructs the AI not to use this design if a specified tech level is available (no use of ships with solar collectors if you have quantum reactor).

- In AI Construction Facility file the possibilty to use of specific facilities instead of abilities (e.g. monolith facility).

- Same as above for components in the AI DesignCreation file (e.g. specific use in ships of organic armor not just armor).

Well I can think certainly of more but for the moment I will stop.

Re: Patch wishlist
 

I would like to be able to modify what facilities the home planet receives at startup. Currently changing any of the homeplanet entries in any of the construction facilities files does not change what I receive at startup.

Re: Patch wishlist
 

How about add an option for deployng mines ans satellites when launched ?
I think this can be easily implemented by allowing the use of the same system already encoded in the game and utilized for ships in fleets formations, just after the launch command.
This would allow a far better tactical use of mines and sats, in particular in battles involving planets defense.
Mines are actually only a strategic weapon and I don't like it very much.
A further step in developping this concept would be to allow tactical battles in minefields deployeds to block warp points.
Now with such type of minefield we have only 2 options:

1)Don't try to pass trough the warp point blocked.
2)Try to pass and destroy the minefield or be destroyed by it.

If the passage would be permitted only after enter the warp point area in the middle of the tactical battle display, we can add the possibility of only forcing the minefield, without destroing it completely or be destroyed by it.
That seems to me far more realistic than the actual all-or-nothing system.
Obviously the problem is to set the formation for a minefield composed of possibly several hundreds of mines but I think this can be arranged by tuning the maximum number of mines and satellites allowed in a single tactical battle, the efficiency and eventually the radius of mines warheads, the efficiency of mine-sweeping equipment and eventually the possibility to allow same weapons to target mines.
Beside I think that to set a mine formation for the AI, deployed to efficiently defend a fixed point like a planet or a warp point, would not be extremely complex: the simpler formation of concentricals rings is not so bad, in particular if is supported by armed sats, may be with pre-arranged entry paths for friendly units and seeking weapons, guarded by others armed sats.
About that another suggestion to make mine warfare more fun and challenging is to allow friendly seeking weapon and may be fighters or even ships to freely pass trough friendly mines in tactical combat.
Thanks for yours opinions an best regards.

Re: Patch wishlist
 

I like the new mine field placement idea. It might help the AI defend it's warp points better. It would be nice if the AI would deploy sats at warp points along with mines and bases (Not sure if it does already, but I haven't seen it yet personally) Would be nice to also have drones that carry one shot missiles or mine clearing charges for warp point assaults kind of like the SBMHAWK pods in some of the Starfire novels.

Re: Patch wishlist
 

I Think my suggestion of placed minefields needs some refining for warp points:
I have considered only the case of a enemy fleet tryng to enter a warp point defended by a mix of bases, armed sats and mines, I forget to consider that the same fleet needs to leave the same warp point on the other side located in target system, and even there can be placed a defensive mix of mines, sats and bases.
I don't see a easy way to deploy the warped fleet and the defensive minefield.
May be the formations utilized to place minefields and satellites needs some restrictions: a forbidden area around the warp point et a forbidden area near the boundaires of the tactical map to allow the deployment of the enemy units.
In any case I think the idea of placed minefield remain workable at least for planets defense.
Any suggestion ?
Thanks.

Re: Patch wishlist
 

What's really frustrating is, I had a couple of REALLY great ideas in mind, but when I read the rest of the thread by ideas went! I can't remember them.

Anyway can a pro-RTS person explain how the game will still be playable? In real time 1 turn = 1 month . I can barely stand to wait a couple of days for the emails.

Re: Patch wishlist
 

Two more ideas: - They wouldn't make a huge difference to gameplay but would be a nice touch:

I think an undomed planet should be able to hold a small domed population - 5 million? -
Without the cargo / facility / population capacity penalty.


This would make my second ideea possible:

Populations move by themselves- A small percentage of a population's growth on a planet represents immigration from nearby planets.
Example - Planet A has a growing population of Terrans. I then colonise nearby planet B with captured Phong. A few years later, planet A has 400m Terrans and 2m Phong. They have not been moved there by me but have migrated there on their own.

This could work for nearby allied worlds as well - After all, any country in the world today has a small population of resident foreigners from friendly countries.

What do you think?

------------------
There is an exception to every rule. Including this one.

Re: Patch wishlist
 

What would be very handy is the ability to printout your setup (options) at the beginning of a game prior to running it.

tic

[This message has been edited by tictoc (edited 12 April 2001).]

Re: Patch wishlist
 

That first one is a good suggestion. I never understood why the cargo capacity was effected by the planet type. And why can the population be so large?

Re: Patch wishlist
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I never understood why the cargo capacity was effected by the planet type. And why can the population be so large?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I imagine the cargo limits are mainly for play balance. Why do you think the populations are too large? I've wondered why they weren't larger. An average rock/oxygen Homeworld only holds 4000M, but the current population of Earth is already over 6000M, and the most common estimate I've seen for the maximum Earth can support is 10000M.

------------------
Cap'n Q

Re: Patch wishlist
 

Make an option in the Colonizing window to list planets by distance from homeworld.

[This message has been edited by Devnullicus (edited 13 April 2001).]

Re: Patch wishlist
 

On domed worlds the population seems to large, homeworlds actually do seem somewhat underpopulated. Must be a pretty big dome http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Patch wishlist
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>On domed worlds the population seems to large, homeworlds actually do seem somewhat underpopulated. Must be a pretty big dome<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The icon is a single dome, but in "reality", each city or even house could be domed individually, and that would add protection against space bombardment.

Re: Patch wishlist
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Question asked by capnq : 53) Surrender not based on score. What else could it be based on? The AI has to have some criteria to decide with.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This would have to be worked out and I think it is a difficult problem. Maybe a rating system is established that tallys points based on the current situation and what has happened or not happened to the ai - similar to the politics system where certain actions adjust the anger level of the AI. Maybe all the AIs planets must be blockaded, the number of battles its lost, planets destroyed, ships destroyed.

Several things could be done - just one of the problems with basing surrender on a high score is that when one of your planets rebel - they also inherit all of your tech. When your opponent can see that rebelled planet - they can demand its surrender,and it will surrender to them- then your opponents gains all of Your tech from that new empire - its a bad hole in surrender. Empires shouldnt surrender unless there is military pressure being placed against the empire and it faces certain extinction.

An empire you are not even at war with should not surrender to you just because you have the highest score.


[This message has been edited by AJC (edited 13 April 2001).]

Re: Patch wishlist
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dogscoff:
Populations move by themselves- A small percentage of a population's growth on a planet represents immigration from nearby planets.

This could work for nearby allied worlds as well - After all, any country in the world today has a small population of resident foreigners from friendly countries.

What do you think?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And sometimes that small population of resident foreigners are from not-so-friendly countries. Maybe allow members of enemy races to "immigrate" (read: escape from their oppressive empire into your glorious empire). These immigrants cause unhappiness when they move in - you know, the typical "stinkin' illegal immigrants coming over and taking OUR jobs" kind of attitude.

Re: Patch wishlist
 

A new algorithm that determines surrender should do do based upon the empires percieved level of threat to its existence. Essentially it should determine if the race's position is hopeless or not. This should further be modified by the races demeanor. A bloodthirsty race is more likely to be like the Japanese in WWII and be very hard to get to surrender while a more peacable race would be more like the Italians.

Re: Patch wishlist
 

I'd like to see fighter Groups launched on the main game screen NOT use up all of their movement. Right now it is almost impossible to launch an interplanetary fighter strike against an enemy fleet because it will usually have moved or left the system by next turn. Launching should only use 1 or 2 of the fighters' movement points.

I really like the migration idea too. I think Stars! Supernova Genesis is supposed to have that.

I too would like to see the AI capable of mounting a credible offensive, complete with coordinated multi-system attacks and planetary invasions.

Re: Patch wishlist
 

perhaps its time for another patch in one update for this thread. Get everything listed in one post up to this point.

Re: Patch wishlist
 

Hi Im new to Se4, This is a great game.
I'll toss out a couple here
1. Have some tech research lead to dead ends. have this be a random occurance with several approaches to say Stellar manipulation. 2 would be dead ends 1 would be a good path. This would have to be random with each game. Maybe a game option.

A battle board for land combat on the planet. Each planet would have a certain number of squares based on its size. You could then develope real armies to invade with.

Re: Patch wishlist
 

Launch/recover/pickup/drop a specific amount in orders e.g.
Move to 4,6 (my homeworld)
Load 100 colonists (even though the transport can hold 330)
Move to 6,8 (colony A)
Drop 50 colonists
Move to 7,6 (Colony B)
Drop 50 colonists

This can be done in one turn in a non-simultaneous game, but takes 3 turns in a simultaneous game.

-----

Ability to break up fighters into Groups, in space. As it is, I have to bring all my carriers to one planet and play cargo shift to get the proper fighters on the proper ships.

-----

Ability to see what defenses a planet has without having to send ships in.

-----

"Visual" ground combat like MOO2. That was way cool with the little animated dudes and lasers and tanks, etc!

-----

Allow repeating of "launch fighters" orders for planets. If I have 10 planets all making 6 fighters per turn, it gets very tedious launching them every turn, and then setting their waypoints the next turn. Also, is it possible to have fighters move to a specific waypoint upon construction like with ships?

-----

How about a "waste one movement turn" order for ships. If I have two fleets I want to use to attack a planet and one is one square away and the other is two away, the closer fleet will get there first and fight without the second fleet AFAIK...

Re: Patch wishlist
 

Reduce effects of orbital bombardment, encourage surface landings.
Is it "realistic" that one frigate with a single gun can efficiently destroy an entire planet's population in under a month?
I suggest:
Damage from orbital bombardment be a percentage based on the level of population of the world
For instance, a world at 100% population is full; it is easy to find cities to bomb, 100% population = 100% damage.
A world half empty gives population a chance to spread out, to hide a bit; 50% population = 50% damage.
A world with only a few people left lets those people run and hide, head for the hills; 10% population = 10% damage.
This will encourage landing troops tomop up the Last pockets of enemy population.

(Perhaps a scale like, 100% pop = 150% dam, 10% pop = 1% dam... it's the idea that counts though)

-----

Population Housing facility; allows an extra x000 population on the world.

-----

Percieved Danger Level per System

A feature for the AI - the ability to judge how dangerous a sytem is, based on a number of factors (which would live in a script for editing the values)

The percieved danger level (PDL) for a system may increase for each enemy ship or world present, for each world lost or population killed, for each ship damaged, or decrease with each victory or over time.
Another factor would be the extent to which PDL "leaks" through wormholes (if the PDL is very high in a nearby system, this system's PDL will rise too)
the PDL would be used by the AI to decide how many forces are needed to enter a system, whether it is worth colonizing, how many weapon platforms etc to build.
Again, all these factors would be listed in a Race_AI_PDL type file, so each race can perceive threat levels differently.

This would help design smarter AI's which don't just keep colonizing the sme world turn after turn and seeing that world wiped out a turn later!
It would also aid the AI in planning.

-----

Change to "Planet Conditions" system -
No one set of conditions is Optimal for every race! Change this to "Type A" "Type B" etc (or more desciptive terms)
Every race chooses one type that is optimal for them, for each type away from their chosen type the world is less optimal by one step.
Also, stars could give off different radiation types, which races can react to.

(Courtesy of Unnecessary Complications Dept)

-----
A player/ AI option : Surface Target Priority Lists for Bombardment.
Allows player to list in order, which items on a planet will be attacked first; any items not on the list will not be deliberately bombarded. Allows player to decide, yeah OK go in and knock out the supply facility, leave the mineral production. Or, hit the weapon platforms leave the population alone. (Of course there will be "collateral damage" effects)

-----

More AI scripting options
Move everything that is currently hardcoded into a script.
For instance, cirumstances to change AI state, the states themselves, any special actions to take in that state.
Also features like the "overvaluing" of scarce resources leading to a mining colony being set up on a 20 mineral world...

A fully featured scripting system would be great, allowing for more fine control and conditional development and behaviour for a race.
(IF
currently_getting_smegged_by_enemy=TRUE
THEN
Stop_Research (Ice Planet Colonization); Start_Research (Shields)
ELSE
AI_State = Woohoo!
)

-----

Planetary facility Version of the self destruct mechanism. If troops take the planet, the facility explodes all remaining facilities on the planet. (Make this item a high priority in the above list!)

-----

More special special events, and "missions".
For instance:
a strange nebula is moving through a system; first player to get a ship with sensors there will get a special tech at the end of the turn, or x000 research per turn, or one of a list of other effects. (The nebula may still have special properties)
Special message to an individual player, granting a mission effect if they succeed at a task; maybe, "SMUGGLING: Move a ship with a cargo bay to enemy world (xxx) by (turn)and return to friendly world to gain (insert reward here)", or "AID REBELLION: Move a ship undetected to enemy world (xxx) by (turn) and eturn to friendly world to (insert espionage effect here)" or "DEFECTING ENEMY SCIENTIST: Move a ship to enemy world (xxx) by (turn) and return to friendly world to gain (tech)"
- more along those lines.

(This whole feature would be switch off- and on-able for each game. It adds space-opera qualities and adds little diVersions from the build-and-kill routine; they resemble the plague events in some ways)

Similarly, a type of Tech to produce a component that can stabilise exploding stars/planets and "cure" the problem in the same way that plagues can be cured.

-----

Monster aliens, (like in MOO and a few others) controlled by computer as a race (a bit like the barbarians were in Civ)
Each monster can have specials; not just in power and ability but in ways to deal with them and gain from them. (Alien 1 might lay eggs in suns causing them to go nova, but any ship with sensors in the same sector generates 1000 research every turn; another may happily land on a world if there is cargo space and act as a super weapon platform; etc)

-----

Allow races to start the game with purchased technology - let them buy items from the tech tree with their initial point allocation, maybe at 10 research points per race point.

-----

Tug ships

A component which lets a small ship tug a ship or base many times it's size at fairly low speeds. Probably requiring certain level of Propulsion, and Tractor Beams.

-----

I'll be back...

[This message has been edited by Mark Walton (edited 16 April 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Mark Walton (edited 16 April 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Mark Walton (edited 16 April 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Mark Walton (edited 16 April 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Mark Walton (edited 16 April 2001).]

Re: Patch wishlist
 

BUMP

Re: Patch wishlist
 

If you destroy a storm, put the info about it .

Re: Patch wishlist
 

When you upgrade a ship design, keep the same default strategy as the old design, rather than giving it the default for a new ship.

Change the wording of the heading on the Set-Up: Victory Conditions screen to reflect the way they actually work. (It currently says "any" VC fulfilled, where it should say something like "all of the highlighted" VCs.) Even better, add a toggle to allow victory if one of several VCs are met, rather than all of them.

------------------
Cap'n Q

The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the
human mind to correlate all of its contents. We live on a placid
island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was
not meant that we should go far. -- HP Lovecraft, "The Call of Cthulhu"

Re: Patch wishlist
 

I'd love to have the ability to retrieve mines and deploy them elsewhere, as with sats and fighters.

I'd also like to see AIs that create more balanced fleets. Ten carriers smashing into the same minefield every five turns is a little dumb.

------------------
"Gentlemen, we have nearly a thousand ships waiting to be thrown into the fight at the proper moment to seize control of the Foundation. I say we should change that. I say, throw those thousand onto the board now--against the Mule."
-- Randu of Haven, from "Foundation and Empire," by Isaac Asimov