Re: New Mod: The Art of War Mod
 

geoschmo:

Unfortunately, those files are long gone. I had given up SE4 long ago (before Gold was announced). All of my old stuff was on a PC that I no longer have....In retrospect, I should have backed them up onto something in case I ever wanted to mess with 'em again, but they had been so outdated by patches that the work required to get them working again was just staggering, especially once I had been away from the game for a while and couldnt even remember whatall needed to be changed...oh well...

As for some other thoughts, I agree that To-hit and Defense bonuses should be in smaller incremental chunks (I believe SE3 DID do it by 10s instead of 20s and 25s). I'd also be really careful about things like the Religious techs that give auto-hit etc. They could potentially screw up balance horribly, especially if you are looking at mods like my own where a lot of weapon to defense interactions are being based on size and 'agility' of the target. Having what should be a VERY low accuracy 'Ship-killer' weapon hitting 100% could be too ugly to contemplate. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Phoenix-D:

Yes, IMO, Capital ships should be very tough to kill. Realistically, only overwhelming numbers, specially designed 'torpedo craft' (or whatever), or other Capitals should really be the only way to deal with them.

In line with that, I also think that everyone should START with ability to make ships of most sizes. It just doesnt make sense to me that people cant build larger combatants earlier in the game however inefficiently. For the most part, the 'technology' doesnt change, just the scale of the project.

Incentives to research Ship Construction could be cheaper hulls of the same size (especially if the starting hulls are very questionable in cost effectiveness), better defense bonuses, or simply better efficiency in engines...ie a 'Cruiser' hull in the early game could be 500kt and cost 800/100/250 while a later game one could be 550kt, cost 500/75/150 or have -5% to be hit instead of the extra 50kt. The scope there alone is nearly endless. Add in differentiations in max speeds and whatnot for even more variety. My vision of it would be that everyone can build a FG,DD,CL,CA,BC,BB of some sort at the beginning. Refinement of the Tech could open up other classes and modify those classes.

Hand in hand with that is the max speed/hull. It is my firm belief that smaller ships should have higher movement maxes and they shouldnt have to burn as much mass percentage to achieve the higher moves. This alone would go a long way to ensuring their longevity in the game. Having nothing but Ships of the Line that can only go 3 or 4 on the strategic map is going to be a serious liability against someone who has a Cruiser squadron capable of going speed 6-8 in strategic. Sure, you can stack the warp points, but if they DO get in, you'll never be able to track them down.

Finally, I definately dont like the feel of outrunning MOST Missiles. Sure you can add some slow but extremely long ranged ones for the initial salvos and whatnot, but when the push comes to shove, I like the missiles going about speed 12+. This is what actually makes them viable. With PD getting TWO shots at every salvo, they are quite worthless.

Another thought on Missiles is that nothing says that they HAVE to be huge, menacing, low Rate of Fire, all or nothing affairs. Smaller missiles that dont do ungodly damage could still be incredibly useful if they have long ranges. There is plenty of scope for Missiles that have varied characteristics.

My vision of would be that most fleets dont go either guns or missiles, but they mix them up a bit. Guns can be more lethal, but shorter ranged and less accurate overall (especially vs smaller combatants) while missiles are long range duelers that can hit anything if they can get through the PD fire. Of course certain exception weapons can exist in that environment as well. Its all really just a matter of how you want to see combat pan out.

More thoughts to follow.... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Talenn

Re: New Mod: The Art of War Mod
 

I like the idea of larger, "inefficient" hull designs at lower Ship tech levels.

It should be easy to implement : for each hull size up to 2 "inefficient hulls" have to be defined, and each tech level could allow "next" hull size inefficient-1 and 2 sizes larger inefficient-2 (more inefficient than 1).
Inefficient-1 will have some 10% less usable space than normal, inefficient-2 15% to 20% less, and perhaps lower speed constraints (larger hulls still have to get more room than smaller one, so a Frigate should have more than 150 Kt useful !)

So for example ship tech-1 will allow :
Escort
Frigate inefficient-1
Destroyer inefficient -2

then ship tech 2 will give
Normal escort and frigate
Destroyer inefficient-1
Lt Cruiser inefficient-2
etc etc

It'll be particularly useful in high start/low progress games such as Proportions.

Re: New Mod: The Art of War Mod
 

Here's an idea on the ECM/ combat sensor debate... how about doing away with the ECM and CS components completely, and building the bonuses into ships / weapons respectively.

It would create a huge mess of new components (meson bLaster II + CS I, meson bLaster II + CS II...) but you might find / write a script to generate them automatically. Would the game engine be able to handle such a huge components.txt file?

Not sure what this would achieve in termms of game balance, bnut it could be interesting. It would certainly give the modder more control over the whole combat bonus system.

Re: New Mod: The Art of War Mod
 

Yeah D, that's an idea. I don't think I will totally eliminate ECM/Sensors, but by reducing the effectivness of them, it will give more of an incentive for people to choose the weapons with inherant bonuses. More tradeoffs like that is what I am looking for.

With the reduction of combat sensor and racial to hit bonuses, I am concerned that the Tailsman may become even more powerful. I am considering changing it so that instead of a guaranteed hit, maybe it will have like a 60% bonus to hit or something like that. It will still be way better than regular sensors, as it should be for the cost involved, but not quite so overwhelming. That's not a final decision. I need to test that a little. Perhaps I will add some Religious only weapons that do have the guaranteed hit (If that's possible that is without transfering the ability to everything on the ship) but that has a limited rate of fire. Maybe two or three times per combat.

All these ship hull ideas are great. One thing I have run up against though is the lack of families and supercedences with vehicle sizes. Unfortunatly there is no "Only latest" in the hull list, so it's going to get kind of cluttered. But oh well. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Also, since I will be slowing down and capping the ship and fleet training facilities, I will probably make the Combat Neural net researchable by everyone . Maybe put it up high in the computer branch. I think that is a cool component that just doesn't get enough use. Probably because it's so easy just to train all the ships the regular way.

Geoschmo

[ 03 May 2002: Message edited by: geoschmo ]</p>

Re: New Mod: The Art of War Mod
 

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by geoschmo:
&lt;snip&gt;
I will also be modifying the racial attack and defense characteristics to make them much more expensive&lt;snip&gt;

Comments?

Geoschmo<hr></blockquote>

Don't forget that you can get attack/defense bonuses using various cultures, and those are free. You may want to either reduce the bonuses in the respective cultures, or just eliminate the cultures that provide attack/defense bonuses...

Re: New Mod: The Art of War Mod
 

Yes, I wasn't planning on eliminating those, but I was planning on reducing them and adjusting the culture file to make them a little more painful in other areas to choose. Just so it's not basically "free" like it is now.

IIRC someone put out a "balanced" culture file a while back that calculated the number of points that would be needed to get the advantages from the culture files and assigned negatives that were equal in value. That sounds like a good thing to me. I'll probably do something like it for AOW.

Geoschmo

Re: New Mod: The Art of War Mod
 

I like the idea of multiple hulls, but could you retrofit, say, a Frigate Inefficient-1 to a standard Frigate? My gut tells me no, but I haven't tested this.... I like the idea of having multiple, progressive hull types, but I don't like the idea of being stuck with an inefficient hull if I build it.

Otherwise... this looks to be a really nice mod once it's fleshed out and finished.

Quikngruvn

Re: New Mod: The Art of War Mod
 

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Quikngruvn:
I like the idea of multiple hulls, but could you retrofit, say, a Frigate Inefficient-1 to a standard Frigate? My gut tells me no, but I haven't tested this.... I like the idea of having multiple, progressive hull types, but I don't like the idea of being stuck with an inefficient hull if I build it.

Otherwise... this looks to be a really nice mod once it's fleshed out and finished.

Quikngruvn<hr></blockquote>

As I recall, the 'modified maintenance ability' is effective when placed in a component. So, rather than have various hulls with different maintenance levels, have all hulls with higher maintenance costs initially and have an 'engineering' tech field that produces crew quarters with increasing levels of maintenance reduction ability. Just retrofit your old ship with the newer crew quarters (standing for newly trained engineers who will save your resources).

Re: New Mod: The Art of War Mod
 

Nope, once you build a hull you are stuck with it or you can scrap it. You can retrofit components, but not to different hulls, even of the same size. You can see this youself in the stock game if you try to retrofit a smal transport to a colony hull.

Geoschmo

Re: New Mod: The Art of War Mod
 

"As I recall, the 'modified maintenance ability' is effective when placed in a component. So, rather than have various hulls with different maintenance levels, have all hulls with higher maintenance costs initially and have an 'engineering' tech field that produces crew quarters with increasing levels of maintenance reduction ability. Just retrofit your old ship with the newer crew quarters (standing for newly trained engineers who will save your resources). "

Very good idea. One thing to keep in mind is that the hull selection window has NO obselete function. In other words, if you have a tech area that gives 10 ships, each a replacement of the Last.. those ships will always show up. It gets really cluttered, really fast.

Phoenix-D

Re: New Mod: The Art of War Mod
 

Ok, I muddled around with this idea for a couple days waiting for inspiration and I think I came up with a combination that I like.

The plan as it is now is to allow all the ship hulls to be built at level one of ship construction. Instead of adding a bunch of hulls though I am doing what was suggested and adding a component that modifies maintenance. I tested this and it does work fine. This will allow designs to be upgraded.

For those that are interesed in the details, I have changed the exsisting Life Support component to "Primary Life Support" and added a One per ship restriction to it. I then am adding a component with life support ability called "Engineering Deptartment" that is also one per ships and is larger and more expensive than the Primary Life Support. In the component description I state that this is required for ships and bases larger than 500Kt. Since the pimary life support can only be added once, people should use the enginering dept for cruisers and above for the second life support comp.

Then I am adding an "Auxillary Life Support" that is also larger and more expensive than the primary life support and Engineering section for the larger ships/bases that require more than two life supports.

At higher levels of ship construction the engineering dept and auxillary life support will be smaller and less expensive, but in the early levels they will be large enough and expensive enough to significantly restrict the effectiveness and efficency of larger ships. Also they will never be as small as Primary life support so they should never be used in place of Primary life support, although there is really no way to prevent that if someone wants to be contrary. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Also at higher levels of ship construction the Engineering Dept will offer progressively larger reductions in maint, which will make the bigger ships much more useable later in the game.

I am also considering furhter penalizing the larger ships early in the game by giving the hull a maint penalty which will be offset later in the game by the engineering dept.

Geoschmo

Re: New Mod: The Art of War Mod
 

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>I am also considering furhter penalizing the larger ships early in the game by giving the hull a maint penalty which will be offset later in the game by the engineering dept.<hr></blockquote>
That would be a good idea. Of course, then you could design small ships with the engineering department, and get really low maintainence ships.

Re: New Mod: The Art of War Mod
 

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

That would be a good idea. Of course, then you could design small ships with the engineering department, and get really low maintainence ships.<hr></blockquote>True. Early on the Engineering dept will be large enough and offer little or no maint reduction though so that should not be abused. Later in the game though once the eng dept gets small enough to use on the smaller ships and the maint reduction comes into play it could be a valid comp to put on a smaller ship and the lower maint should help to keep them a viable option, which is part of the goal of this whole thing.

Geoschmo

Re: New Mod: The Art of War Mod
 

Art of War Beta Version .70 is available.

Not everyhting discussed has been added yet. Mainly smoothing out the combat modifiers and wroking on the ship hull ideas. Have not change anything with the propulsion yet, or added any new weapons or tweaked any old ones.

Kick it around and tell me what you think. You should be able to play against the AI, at least to get a feel for it. I haven't totally shut them off yet.

Geoschmo

Re: New Mod: The Art of War Mod
 

Well, um, I wish I had something productive to add to the discussion. I have been following the thread, and I guess I just wanted to give some moral support. That's it! I'll be the cheerleader!!!

NOT!

Anyway, this should be a cool mod for PBW. More power to ya!

Re: New Mod: The Art of War Mod
 

geoschmo:

I took a quick look through the hull sizes and whatnot at the start of a game. I didnt have time to play it out, but here are a few quick observations:

1) Larger ship hulls arent going to be used at all early on in the current form, even with the Eng Dept. They have to be made a bit more attractive. Maybe certain 'large ship only' components will help. I know the goal is to have them become more useful as time goes by, but they should at least be viable (if expensive) in the early game or there really isnt a choice to build them.

2) CAs appear useless in this build. CLs only lose 100kt, get a defensive bonus, an offensive bonus, and dont get the hideous 50% maintenance penalty. IMO, the CA should be the largest 'standard' hull that people use...ie, the workhorse of the fleet. Anything bigger (Cap ships) should start to cost the hideous maintenance, but start getting the 'power' returns...ie, greatly increased space, components that only they can benefit from, weapon mount bonuses etc.

3) The smaller hulls probably dont really need a To-hit bonus AND a Defense bonus. I think the two together are working against what you wanted originally by trimming the bonuses back on the Sensors/ECMs etc. If the rest of the mod is in place, I dont think they will be necessary and could unbalance things farther down the road. As it is now, without missiles, some of the larger cant hit the small guys at all, but receive no real benefit in return.

All of this is just my opinion. I applaud your efforts and I wish I had more time to tweak with it and send you some working data. Please dont take any of this as an 'attack' on your work.
I have thought the hull size interactions through a bit after my Last mod and I can probably work up some other rough numbers for you to look at if you want.

Thanx,
Talenn

Re: New Mod: The Art of War Mod
 

Taelenn. No ofense taken. The reson I posted them is that I wanted feedback. Yours especially as a lot of what I am doing is based on comments you have already made in the thread.

Personally I like all the hulls having defensive and offensive bonuses or penalties, depending on the size. I think it fits with the overall feel of the mod, and with the goal of keeping the small ships viable later in the game. I may have gone a bit high with them though. I went with the exsisting defense bonuses/penalties and just filled in the gaps for ths ships that didn't have them in the stock game. With the other combat modifieing comps though I decresead these, and I probably should have with the hulls. I will probably cut the pluses and minuses in half for the next Version.

The attack bonus is already half of the defense bonus for the hulls. This balances wiht the ECM-Armor/Combat Senosrs though, as currently I have the sensors with an advantage. This is planned though as I want sensors to be stronger than ECM to lessen "Hot kinfe through butter" effect of a slight sensor tech diparity now in combat. Yes the higher tech should win, and destroy the enemy, but they shouldn't walk off the field without a scratch.

Also the larger ships have the turret mount that increases chance to hit, did you see that?

Personally I don't think the maint for the larger ships is an issue. I didn't intend to make them viable early, just available for someone if they wanted to pay enough for them, since in the stock game they aren't even evailable.

However the lack of space is an issue. The need for the engineering section and additional crew quarters does limit the Cruiser, and that's without implementing my proplulsion changes, which will futher cramp things for them. I think what I may do there is raise the size of the Cruiser, or add an other step or two in there. Maybe Light Cruiser, Cruiser, Heavy Cruiser, battle Cruiser? And maybe shuffle the sizes of the smaller ships some. I don't know. I'll have to think that one over.

Keep the comments coming.

Geoschmo

Re: New Mod: The Art of War Mod
 

Geo:

Why did you use the life support instead of the crew quarters? It seems to me that the crew quarters represent the real maintainers of the ship. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Also, what about Master Computers? Should they have the same bonus or maybe a higher bonus than whatever crew components you make into an 'engineering component' to control maintenance costs?

It's too bad we can't use the 'restrictions' abilities in the vehiclesize.txt to control how much of various other components besides engines and cargo bays can be put into a given hull. We could have cruisers able to carry a higher proportion of armor or weapons than a light cruiser and so have an advantage even if it's only slightly larger.

[ 07 May 2002: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]</p>

Re: New Mod: The Art of War Mod
 

Not sure why I used life support instead of crew quarters for the egineering section. Just did. Could have been either.

Yes, using a master comp as is instead of the engineering section would put a severe crimp on the maint for larger ships. I suppose there is nothing stopping one from using a master comp and an engineering section.

I will have to work on that. Perhaps the master comp will have tech reqs in computers and ship construction, and the higher levels of ships construciton, you will get a master comp with a better maint reduction. Keep it equal to the same level of engineering section. That could work. Of course then you'd have people using master computers on small ships and getting free maint. Maybe I don't want to do that afterall.

Thanks for pointing that out.

Geo

[ 07 May 2002: Message edited by: geoschmo ]</p>

Re: New Mod: The Art of War Mod
 

Also remember that unless the maintance bonuses don't stack, people will probably put both a master computer and engineering section on, just to get the enhanced maintance reduction.

EDIT: you never did tell me if you wanted the "warhead + body" missile types I made. I'll assume that's a no http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Phoenix-D

[ 07 May 2002: Message edited by: Phoenix-D ]</p>

Re: New Mod: The Art of War Mod
 

I believe maint bonuses do stack. So that about clinches it. You will still need to have an engineering section on you ships with master computers, ubless you have pleanty of money and don't care about the maintenance reduction. But for a large ship the 40Kt sholdn't be that critical.

I am still interested in the missles. I just haven't got to that point in the mod yet.

Geoschmo

Re: New Mod: The Art of War Mod
 

OK. I'll try and clean them up a bit, balance them out better.

Are you planning on adjusting weapon damage any? Because these were based on the standard CSM damage and changed from there. PM me when you get around to wanting them, and I'll send over what I have.

Phoenix-D

Re: New Mod: The Art of War Mod
 

Geoschmo, One thing I really liked about the deathstalker Mount Mod was the Mini Mount for components. (you know, the one that halved the size of non-weapon components for twice the price)
This allowed you to create 'Elite' ships that were costly to build, but could carry much more.
This trade-off between Build time/Maint-and- repair-cost and capability was self balancing IMO.

Re: New Mod: The Art of War Mod
 

This mod is really cool, i haven't played too far yet but it is very interesting. I liked all hte work you put in on the ships. I did go after ECM tech as i usually would and found to my dismay and then eventual joy that it didn't work as well.
This is much more realistic and i really like that, also the engineering component thing is cool too.

Re: New Mod: The Art of War Mod
 

Geo,

Nice mod concept, I like. Took a look at the components and was a little taken aback with the sensors/ecm balance. I know that you wanted sensors to have the edge but by five times? Ouch. Was that intentional?

Wouldn't a 50/30 or even a 50/20 sensor/ecm split be somewhat better? At least then you'd have some small sense of accomplishment (having researched ten levels of combat support after all).

I would think that any self-respecting Supreme Galactic Overlord would have his researchers flogged for so piddling a result as 1% per level. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: New Mod: The Art of War Mod
 

If you add in the ECM bonus for Stealth and Scattering armor it's not nearly as bad for the sensors. But I still wanted the sensors to have tha advantage.

One of my biggest problems with combat in the stock game is that with a slight edge in ECM+Stealth+Scattering Armor your ships become almost unhittable. Throw a couple PDC's to hanlde the missles, and a couple shields to soak up the few lucky shots that do manage to get through, and you have a ship that all to often will escape a battle completely undamaged.

It's not even uncommon for battles to be so lopsided that 10 ships with said ECM advantage can wipe out 50 or even more that are otherwise equal in tech, without losing a single ship, or even suffering much damage.

By giving sensors the advantage, or less of a disadvantage at least, those battles have a different dynamic. You should still expect to win with superior tech and equal or nearly equal numbers, but you should at least suffer some casualties and damage and have to be more selective about when and where you fight.

What I was going for with the slow progression of the combat modifying techs is to make it take more of a comitment from an empire to develop them. To keep anyone from getting a big advantage very early. However one side effect of this is that if a race ignores these areas long enough it will be next to impossible for them to catch up. Not sure if I have the balance right yet.

I also wanted experience to be more of a determining factor, because that's something I can't really control since it's hardcoded. But I weakened the training facilities so you have to earn the experience the hard way.

Geoschmo

[ May 19, 2002, 23:37: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Re: New Mod: The Art of War Mod
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I wish I had more time, I'd like to check out the beta. So when I make suggestions, keep in mind that it's kind of like the blind leading the blind. But anyway, have you looked at SJ's P&N for inspiration here? The way he handles it (numbers are rough estimates, I haven't used his training facilities for a while) is that level one goes up to 15%, with 3% gained per turn (maxed in 5 turns). Level 2 goes up to 20% but with only 2% gained per turn (maxxed in 10 turns). Level 3 goes up to 25%, with only 1% gained per turn (max in 25 turns!). So to get the higher % takes much more time. I thought that was a pretty cool idea. Maybe you could plagerize, or at least use it as inspiration? Or not, I don't know. Hell, maybe you already have!

Re: New Mod: The Art of War Mod
 

"I haven't used his training facilities for a while) is that level one goes up to 15%, with 3% gained per turn (maxed in 5 turns). Level 2 goes up to 20% but with only 2% gained per turn (maxxed in 10 turns). Level 3 goes up to 25%, with only 1% gained per turn (max in 25 turns!). So to get the higher % takes much more time. I thought that was a pretty cool idea."

Or if you build all three it's maxed in 23 turns, total.

Phoenix-D

Re: New Mod: The Art of War Mod
 

Hey, quick question: Do those facilities stack? If not, how does it choose which facility is "active"? (does it pick most increase per turn, or highest max?)

Edit: sorry for taking this thread OT. It won't happen again, I swear!!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/blush.gif

[ May 20, 2002, 08:09: Message edited by: dumbluck ]

Re: New Mod: The Art of War Mod
 

even if they don't, just put them on nearby planets.. I haven't tested it.

Re: New Mod: The Art of War Mod
 

I am not aware that these facilities stack. According to the description they do not. Phoenix appears to be saying they do however. There may be a bug. I haven't tested it.

P&N is a nice way to do it, however it wasn't what I was looking for. In AoW I made five levels of each instaed of three. In all five levels they rate of experience is 1% one per turn. The lower levels can only gain 6% percent max, the highest levels only 10%. I wanted to limit the amount of experience you cold accquire "artificaially" an make the ships earn it the hard way through combat.

One thing I did change to help in this area though is I made the Combat Neural Net a researchable component, instead of making you find ruins to get it.

Geoschmo

Re: New Mod: The Art of War Mod
 

Hello,

A couple of things I thought about while reading this thread:

1) Change the ship construction costs so that smaller craft are much much cheaper compared to the larger. Also, give larger ships an inherent bonus to damage resistence. I've always been a little annoyed when I compare Se4 navies to modern navies. Take WW2 naval distributions: battleships took forever to build/repair, but were very tough to knock out (and even tougher to destroy outright). By comparision, destroyers etc were pumped out 'en masse'. In the game, maybe a single shipyard could construct more than one small ship per turn. Captial (Cruiser and up) ships should take a really really long time.

If the modifications suggested below to increase the late-game usefulness of the smaller hulls were included then Se4 fleets would start to resemble real life fleets, with a capital ship never being put to sea/space without attendent destroyers to use as scouts/screens.

(Sorry that rambled on a bit)

2) Ancient ruins. I think it would be interesting if ancient ruins not only supplied a new tech level, but perhaps opened access to an entire tech tree; imagine scientists finding a piece of technology that is initally useless, but allows access to whole new concepts/branches (Think of the broken arm and chip found in Terminator 2)

Re: New Mod: The Art of War Mod
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This can already happen in SE IV on a small scale, when you find one or more of the normal techs rather than a Unique tech. (For example, in one of my games, I recently found Military Science on a Ruins world, which opens three other tech areas for research, but gives no immediate components.)

Re: New Mod: The Art of War Mod
 

Training Facilities:
First off, there are 4 types of training facilities: Sector ship training, Sector fleet training, System ship training, and System fleet training. Taken separately, each of these functions identically. When combined, Sector and System training facilities (Normal ones and the Psychic ones) both stack, for a possibility of 6% per turn.

That being said, I will focus on Sector ship training facilities. If you have multiple training facilities on one planet, only one facility functions. The facility with the highest training rate adds experience each turn. Once that facility's limit has been reached, it can no longer add any experience. This does not matter in the standard facilities, since more advanced ones increase both the rate and the max. Once the facility with the highest rate has been maxed, the second highest rated facility will train the ship. I will use this example to illustrate how this works:
----------------
Level I (L I):
3% per turn
15% max

Level II:
2% per turn
20% max

Level III:
1% per turn
25% max
----------------
Consider a planet that has all three facilities built on it. Ship X with 0 experience parks in orbit.

Turn 1-5:
L I is the highest rated trainer, so it adds 3% per turn. On turn 5, Ship X has 15%.

Turn 6-7:
Since Ship X has 15% exp, L I can not train it anymore. So, L II, the 2nd highest trainer, takes over. It adds 2% on turn 6, and then 2% on turn 7, bringing Ship X to 19%.

Turn 8:
L II could add 2% still, but it's limit is at 20%. So, it can only add 1% to the total, bringing it to 20%. Only one facility works at a time, so L III does not add anything.

Turn 9-13:
L III now takes over, since L II has maxed out. It adds 1% per turn for 5 turns, bringing the ship to 25%.

So, if you only build a L III, it takes 25 turns to maximize exp. If you build one of each, then it only takes 13 turns.

Edit: Hmm... I hope that isn't confusing as hell. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ May 23, 2002, 02:19: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: New Mod: The Art of War Mod
 

So, um, not to sound like the impatient child who isn't willing to help out, but how is this mod coming along? I was hoping to play it sometime soon...

Re: New Mod: The Art of War Mod
 

Heh, well between finding time and waiting for inspiration, I am kind of at a stand still here. Sorry. Maybe this will be just one more in my list of things I never got around to doing. I've always said I am more of an idea man that a do'er. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: New Mod: The Art of War Mod
 

I have. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Sorry. Maybe I'll get around to it someday.

Re: New Mod: The Art of War Mod
 

Oh well. . . . http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif I forgive you, but only cause you're associated with PBW... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: New Mod: The Art of War Mod
 

No, I haven't forgotten.

Budda bump http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

Re: New Mod: The Art of War Mod
 

I was thinking of resurrecting this mod on my own, with my extremely limited abilities. More specifically, I was wanting to incorperate most of it's ideas into a tech-grid kind of mod. (you know, one where, for instance, you research different techs to increase missile range, increase missile damage resistance, increase missile speed, etc. etc. etc.) Would you be willing to let me use what you've got so far, Geo? (if you still have it...)

edit: my keyboard can't spell!

[ November 03, 2002, 07:02: Message edited by: dumbluck ]

Re: New Mod: The Art of War Mod
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, if you'd like, I'll gladly write up a mQNP mount package, if you want to use that system for movement (yes, this is essentially a shameless plug for my idea, heh). Obviously you'd have to let me know if you plan to change any ship sizes, and, let me know what sort of WNP mass:propulsion ratio you might want.

I also suggest looking at the mount ideas in Deathstalker's mount mod, many of them are IMO quite fun.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And, what's better, mQNP can do this.

The concept is, each engine produces an increasing numbr of movement points (for my own Exodus mod, I'm planning on 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, for each successive level of propulsion). No engine produces bonus movement points.

You then decide what % of a ships mass will be needed to produce that speed form a single engine; with the engine component itself godawfully huge (Exodus will have engines massing 1,000kT each!), you then use MOUNTS to bring the final engine size down to what a given ship size needs to have.

For example, if you chose 10%, and used 1,000kT engiens ... a 200kT Frigate would use a mount that reducesthe engine size, cost, supplies used, and so on ... by 98%. The mount would specify 200kT as both the maximum AND minimum size of ship that could utilise that mount; each ship size would therefor have it's very own mount for engines.

The only trick is, the beginning escort would need to be reduced to 100kT in size, as I don't believe mounts can use fractional % reductions ...

Also, you can have multiple mounts -- an armored Version, or a normal Version. Each variation of engine you want to model with a mount, simply requires another "Set" of engine mounts. For example, taken from Exodus:

(Note, the Comp Family entry is blank as I haven't yet assigned specific family numbers to the various engine types).

A normal engine mount, intended for the 100kT Escort hull:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Long Name := A Series Engine Mount
Short Name := A Series
Description := Engine mount for 100kT hulls
Code := A
Cost Percent := 1
Tonnage Percent := 1
Tonnage Structure Percent := 1
Damage Percent := 0
Supply Percent := 1
Range Modifier := 0
Weapon To Hit Modifier := 0
Vehicle Size Minimum := 100
Vehicle Size Maximum := 100
Comp Family Requirement :=
Weapon Type Requirement := none
Vehicle Type := Ship</pre><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">An armored mount, intended for the same hull:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Long Name := Armored A Series Engine Mount
Short Name := Armored A Series
Description := Armored Engine mount for 100kT hulls; +100% cost/structure.
Code := ArA
Cost Percent := 2
Tonnage Percent := 1
Tonnage Structure Percent := 2
Damage Percent := 0
Supply Percent := 1
Range Modifier := 0
Weapon To Hit Modifier := 0
Vehicle Size Minimum := 100
Vehicle Size Maximum := 100
Comp Family Requirement :=
Weapon Type Requirement := none
Vehicle Type := Ship</pre><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That shows the smallest mount available (resulting in 10kT engines, so engines in use at the game's start will be a familiar size to SE4 players ... as the ships get bigger, the engines get bigger but the speeds remain the same).

At the other end of the scale are the M-class engines:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Long Name := M Series Engine Mount
Short Name := M Series
Description := Engine mount for 2500kT hulls
Code := M
Cost Percent := 25
Tonnage Percent := 25
Tonnage Structure Percent := 25
Damage Percent := 0
Supply Percent := 25
Range Modifier := 0
Weapon To Hit Modifier := 0
Vehicle Size Minimum := 2500
Vehicle Size Maximum := 2500
Comp Family Requirement :=
Weapon Type Requirement := none
Vehicle Type := Ship</pre><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Now you might wonder why M-Class engiens don't simply form the basic size; the intent is to pretty much force players to use the mounts, either through sheer unusable size (originally, Exodus was to use 4,000kT engines, which would NEVER fit un-mounted, in any mobile hull), or through costliness.

Now, the thing is (and thanks for the idea), one can now make an armor component that is also a 0-movement ENGINE. It can have -both- properties, serving as normal armor, and as an engine, to absorb engine-destroying weapons fire (call it Polarised Armor or whatever). http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif No move-bonus conflicts whatsoever, but still the "feel" of QNP-style movement ... with minimal player installing-gobs-of-engines just to move speed 1 (P&N's Battlemoons are -annoying- ... 30+ engines for speed 1 ... sheesh!).

Say the word, give me a list of ship sizes and mass ratios, I'll write up similar style mounts for you. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Or, a parallel to the Master Computer -- "Automated Maintenance System" or "Automated Engineering" ... no control-component abilities, but a maintenance reduction, based on similar techs to the Master Computer ... ?

[EDIT]
Had some more to put in, andonly now realised how old the thread is, and that Dumbluck is looking to resurrect it. Oh well, the offer still stands. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
[/EDIT]

[ November 03, 2002, 11:13: Message edited by: Pax ]

Re: New Mod: The Art of War Mod
 

Yes, I would be interested (that's just less work for me http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ), but I am just starting and so haven't gotten any kind of firm #'s yet... I'll let ya know.

[ November 03, 2002, 10:43: Message edited by: dumbluck ]

Re: New Mod: The Art of War Mod
 

Good luck Dumbluck, I really like the idea of this mod. Hope you can get it of the ground. If you need any help with pictures or numbercrunching, give me yell.

Re: New Mod: The Art of War Mod
 

Dumluck, If you scroll back through this thread, I always posted the current Version of what ever I had done. I haven't touched it in quite a while. Feel free to do whatever you want with it. I obviously will never get around to it.

Geoschmo

Re: New Mod: The Art of War Mod
 

Dumbluck, I am indeeeed willing to take on the hull/propulsion work; I've had a few more ideas, in fact.

I've been thinking of the ship sizes; I think dropping the 150kT hull off the bottomof the scale, and shifting every military ship-hull name] and image one step "up" woudl work nicely. Thus, you would have:

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">200kT ... Escort; each engine 20kT
300kT ... Frigate; each engine 30kT
400kT ... Destroyer; each engine 40kT
500kT ... Light Cruiser; each engine 50kT
600kT ... Cruiser; each engine 60kT
800kT ... Battlecruiser; each engine 80kT
1000kT ... Battleship; each engine 100kT
1600kT ... Dreadnought; each engine 150kT</pre><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">(the 1600kT size for the dreadnought is for mQNP purposes, see below)

Alternately, what about shifting them like so:

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">(Light ships; +100kT per increase)
200kT ... Escort; each engine 20kT
300kT ... Frigate; each engine 30kT
400kT ... Destroyer; each engie 40kT

(Medium ships; +200kT per increase)
600kT ... Light Cruiser; each engine 60kT
800kT ... Cruiser; each engine 80kT
1000kT ... Battlecruiser; each engine 100kT

(Heavy ships; +400kT per increase)
1400kT ... Battleship; each engine 140kT
1800kT ... Dreadnought; each engine 180kT</pre><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The second one allows for roughly the same range of sizes (only +300kT at the highest end). either one would allow for a 2000kT base engine size, preventing use of un-mounted engines entirely (making the mQNP usage "idiot-proof"). Just divide the tonnage of each ship hull by 200, and you would have the size/cost % for each engine, from 1% for the Escort, up to 8% or 9% for the Dreadnought (depending on which size set you wanted).

Designing an escort for early scouting, presuming most other components remained Stock SE4-ish, would give us a 200kT hull. Bridge, LS, Crew, that's 30kT. 5 engines (the max) is 100kT more, total of 130kT. If Supply Bays come in 10kT increments, there's now room for 7 of them -- or 4 of them, and an early APB for dealing with other hostile scouts; in either case, teh supply capacity woudl be the same as 3.5 or 2 current supply bays.

Currently, 6 engines, bridge, quarters, life support, and three supply containers makes a 150kT escort; one less supply bay allows mounting a meson bLaster.

So the two would be reasonably comparable, IMO.

Re: New Mod: The Art of War Mod
 

For pictures, I've got the imagemod. For the numbercrunching, I'll let you know. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: New Mod: The Art of War Mod
 

Pax:I like the second Version of your ship sizes. But what about the baseship/worldship/whatever the proper name for it is (I never use em...)
Edit: PS. I am planning on stealing your idea for engine tech you described to me, if you don't mind... And I'm planning on stealing a lot of stuff from SJ, too... If he doesn't mind, of coarse...

And Pax, did you extend your engine mounts down into the fighters, too?

second edit: I should have read your post more closely. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/blush.gif

[ November 04, 2002, 10:32: Message edited by: dumbluck ]

Re: New Mod: The Art of War Mod
 

Geo: I could only find one Version listed in this thread: AoW Beta Version .70. Is that the most current Version?

Here is a { link } to that Version...

[ November 04, 2002, 09:43: Message edited by: dumbluck ]

Re: New Mod: The Art of War Mod
 

Ok. Here's my first real contribution to this mod. Tell me what you think. I'm expanding on Geo's idea of a maintenance reducing component, called Engineering. First off, I must admit that I didn't like his engineering replacing Life support; I thought it fit much better as a Crew Quarter. Yes, I know, it makes no difference to the program. But I'm just picky that way. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Anyway, his setup was that research into Ship construction gave Engineering components with progressively higher maintenance reductions. But what if instead, hulls get progressively worse Maint. penalties, in 10% increments, starting with the escort. Then, by researching Ship Construction, maintenence reduction components become available (1 per level). Each component gives a 10% reduction, and should be about 5kt. Make them count as crew quarters, and limited to 1 per ship. There are 9 levels of ship const., so 9 components are needed.

So, an escort gets a 10% Maintenance penalty, but also needs 2 CQ. (1 regular CQ (10kt) + 1 maint. reducer(5kt and 10%maint. Reduction), both available from the start.) A frigate gets a 20% penalty, but needs 3CQ (1 regular and 2 maint.reducers). A Destroyer gets a 30% penalty, and needs 4 CQ (1 normal, 3 special). Etc. Etc. Etc.

This also gives the benefit that ships smaller than the currently largest available get an additional 10% maint. reduction by replacing the regular CQ with a maint. reducing comp.! And there is the added benefit that there is no longer that hump at the L.Cruiser/Cruiser switchover...

Names for maintenance reducers:
</font>

• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Aux. Bridge ((available with Computers 1 and ShipCon 3) acts as bridge if bridge is destroyed, reduced to 5kt.</font>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Engineering Department</font>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Crew Mess </font>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Officer's Mess</font>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">First Aid Station (available with biology + ship const. )</font>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Maintenance Access Tube</font>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Recreation room (available with Psychology + ship const.)</font>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Small arms locker (available with AdvMilSci + ship const 6.) (grants small Boarding Party defense)</font>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Automated Repair Drone (available with Repair 3 + ship const. 7)(repairs 1 per turn)
  </font>

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Of coarse, now I have to figure out how all the other ships (Lrg Transport, Starbase, Heavy Carrier, etc.) fit into all this... Any Ideas? Also, if you have any suggestions about crossover maint. reducers, let me know. It is important, however, that we have not many more than 9 components total (a few extra wouldn't hurt, though). I don't want any maintenance free battleships running around!!!
And one other thing for all you modding gurus out there: Will this work? If I've got a ship hull with (for example) an inherant +60% maintenance modifier, will it be cancelled out by 6 components each with a -10% maintenance modifier?
PS. I know there is a modding tool out there, but I can't find it... Any pointers would be appreciated...

[ November 04, 2002, 11:50: Message edited by: dumbluck ]

Re: New Mod: The Art of War Mod
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Exctly: many folks never use 'em. The images for them are usually just "flying starbase". Excise them, or, put them in at a 2000kT size (or better, 2200kT, so that they can be used for SW and RW construction? Hmmm ...). Only catch is, of course, someone could accidentally (?) install an egine without a mount at all on the baseship if it's over 2000kT in size (planning on 2,000kT engines, after all)

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No problem at all. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Fighters will require their own engine, and series of mounts, to preserve the mQNP process there (the Excort already has a 1%-size mount, I don't believe SE4 will LET you get smaller). But with, say, 10kT/20kT/30kT for Small/Medium/Large, it's child's play to set up a mount for mQNP fighters. 40kT Fighter engine, with small/medium/large getting 4%/8%/12% engines, respectively.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif