Re: Next patch requests
 

Really, the only redeaming item in Star Wars Rebellion were the intelligence/counter-intel wars (plus the major characters). The computer was still pretty dense, but intel wars between humans was a heck of a lot of fun!

Re: Next patch requests
 

If there is one thing to request in the next patch is this:

A Supply Transfer window http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
Just for those desperate moments...

Re: Next patch requests
 

1)Learn the AI to use captured populations.

2)space monsters :-)

Re: Next patch requests
 

Among the brilliant topic from others ?, I would request these top ideas:

) The long awaited age race experince point theorie.
) Independent AI ministers > to ships / units?.
) Improved AI communication & trade with player.
) SHIP/UNITES MENU > Ship types> how many # of cruisers, destroyers the number amount per TYPE like in se3.
)Fill in the TAB gaps.

Ferengi Rules of Accquistion #75 Home is where the heart is... but the stars are made of latinum.

Re: Next patch requests
 

Did I mention wheel mouse support?

Well, if I didn't, here you go:

WHEEL MOUSE SUPPORT

Why SEIVG doesn't have it, I don't know, but it is surely annoying.

Derek

Re: Next patch requests
 

There is a few shortcuts I would like to see in the Map Editor to make it a little less tedious and a little more useful.

1. Easy to add warp points: Just click on two systems and viola - a warp point.

2. Make random system: Pick a system and have it make random planets/asteroids/etc.

These two shortcuts I think would result in a whole lot more custom maps for this game.

Re: Next patch requests
 

A simpler way to simplify the WP creation might be a "Add reciprocal warppoint" checkbox in the window while you are adding the first one.

I agree that the random system generator would be immensely useful.
An option to specify a particular system type would be nice.
IE: - Add "BlackHole 1" system at map position (24,37).
- Add "Binary 3" system at map position (10,12)

Then you get enough control, but with all of the real busywork of planet forming done for you.

Re: Next patch requests
 

On the Map editor: Maybe make it more flexible to substitute it as a scenario editors?

For Starcraft (and warcraft I believe) there were Scenario Editors that could make maps and scenarios. (Although lots of people couldn't understand the triggers or how to use them)

Maybe make it so we can add ships, colonies and empires in the map making process?

And also (I know I'm asking a lot here but I feel like Christmas-y) maybe add an option to create systems and warp points in some sort of pattern that you can set; that goes beyond Just setting Spiral Arm galaxy or Midlife galaxy, more like

Make: Spiral Arm
Choke Points: 5-10
Black holes: 10
Nebulas: 30

And so on.

Re: Next patch requests
 

TerranC,

I think a lot of those changes are beyond Aaron's commitment to SE:IV, but would be good ideas for SE:V!

I think the few I suggested would be easy to implement and could even be added for the next patch.

BTW, how's the 40cm of snow? Ha Ha Ha! Maybe the Calgary Flames can shovel it up for you since they have nothing better to do.

[ 10 May 2002, 06:31: Message edited by: Captain Kwok ]

Re: Next patch requests
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Yes, but you can give an 'engine' Combat movement only (and make it a Base component - checking to see that all other engines are Ship only) and limit it to One Per Vehicle. Then a space station can manuever during combat, but not fly away from the location it was built.

Re: Next patch requests
 

I like Ratqueen's idea about the game saving your settings. It would be really cool if I didn't have to go in and change everything every time I started a new game, like add planet names, turn on system grid, turn off galactic map grid.

http://www.shrapnelgames.com/cgi-bin...;f=23;t=005529

Re: Next patch requests
 

[quote]Originally posted by kalthalior:
I like Ratqueen's idea about the game saving your settings. It would be really cool if I didn't have to go in and change everything every time I started a new game, like add planet names, turn on system grid, turn off galactic map grid.

http://www.shrapnelgames.com/cgi-bin...;f=23;t=005529[/QUO TE]

Just like with ship designs: saving empire during the game saves all settings, like turn on system grid, for later use. There is no need to sort out all empire settings every time.

Re: Next patch requests
 

Maybe this was mentioned a long time ago somewhere, but it is my only wish. I don't want any of the previous ones I mentioned. If I get this one, I will be the happiest camper in the whole galaxy.

-Take out the requirement that in order to create a constructed planet (i.e a sphereworld) there must be a star present, or at least make it moddable that one needs to be there or not.

Why?

I really don't care about building sphereworlds on anything but a star, but this would allow other designs, smaller designs, to be built as bases anywhere in the system.

Think about it folks. This one small change solves the problem, from a certain point of view, of having facility abilites on vehicles. Not on ships obviously, but on bases, which I think would be the only logical place for say an intel facility.

Yes, this doesn't help the AI, but what mod does really, 'cept the TDM and maybe one or two others.

You'd have to colonize these planet-bases, and their only weapons capabilities would come from WPs, but I sort of like the idea of having to invest population in a base. And the weapons capabilities of such a base could change with the weather, not needing to retrofit.

Dear Santa,
...

Re: Next patch requests
 

I Still want my sortable screens.

Ie. Cargo on planents

Show me what i want to see. Not all cargo on all planets.

This should subdivide into all,mines,fighters, etc...

Royal Pain the way it is now.

Re: Next patch requests
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">The sphereworld concept is based on some forumula/table where a super advanced race would build them around a star. I will try to find that site that talks about sphereworlds. it is one of the few things that follow and actual concept.

Re: Next patch requests
 

Sphearworlds: Dyson Sphears:

Ring or shell constructed around a star or black hole. In the ring live people;
the ring is powered by the energy emissions of the star/black hole.
The construction of this habitats are proposed by the 20th century physician
Dyson, but never taken serious.

The Dyson sphere is named for the 20th Century Earth scientist Freeman Dyson; Dyson suggested that civilizations could be classified by the amount of power which they could tap and control. He proposed that eventually a civilization would tap the entire energy output of a star; some suggested that this would best be achieved by orbiting huge numbers of solar collectors, but this idea was quickly replaced by the idea of constructing a large solid sphere around it. This would not only allow all of the suns energy to be tapped if required, but would also potentially allow a colossal living area to be built.

Got it from
The Daystrom Institute

Re: Next patch requests
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Good old Star trek

Here is an interview with Dyson about this:

http://www.omnimag.com/archives/interviews/dyson.html

Re: Next patch requests
 

Ironic.

Nuclear reactors in space, 30 years ago and now, absolutely no difference.

At least the Jet Propulsion Lab are researching Ion Engines.

Re: Next patch requests
 

JPL's ion engines are low thrust, long burn engines, quite a departure from what most of us think of (ion drives on TIE fighters). But hey, it'll help JPL sucker money out of some of the... er, less sharp politicians.

Re: Next patch requests
 

"But hey, it'll help JPL sucker money out of some of the... er, less sharp politicians."

It's not just suckering..

Let's say you have two cars. One can go 0-60 in one minute, but can only stay at 60 for one hour. Distance traveled: 60 miles. Time: 1 hour.

The second car can go 0-60 in one hour, but can stay there for a week. Distance traveled: 10,020 miles. Time: 168 hours. So you go 167 times the distance, for 168 times the time spent. Clearly if you need to go farther than a mile the second is a better choice..

That's why the current ion engines are useful. I have no idea why SF hit on "ion" engines being these speed demons, really.

Phoenix-D

Re: Next patch requests
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Because in comparisson to chemical engines they are ! Well, potentially at least. There are no concevaible means to acclerate any more the exhast of standart rocket, while there might be ways to improve the thrust of other, so far exotic rocket engines. The close marking of any hints from academic establishment by mass media makes a perfect sense if you taxonony sci-fi literature according to its original postulate : a literature on the edge of our scientific progress. ( Star Trek is random string of techno bubble and has no right to be considered as a SCIENTIFIC fiction IMHO)

Re: Next patch requests
 

Yes, ion drives have a strange Cache. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif First, I think 'ion' just sounds cool, and NASA has been talking about ion rives for ages. But also there was a specific Star Trek episode that touted the ion drives of some space ship that ambushed them and captured Spock, erm, Spock's brain, and I think that stuck in the popular imagination. While the exhaust speed of an ion drive is far greater than any current chemical rocket the thrust is very small and so the rate of acceleration is also very small. This high exhaust speed makes for great efficiency, though, so once you are out of the atmosphere it is a better thing to have for long-range probes that cannot come home and tank-up like a plane or ship can on earth. You get much more total thrust out of a given weight of propellant but it takes much longer to take effect. I don't think an ion drive can even operate within our atmosphere. They have to test them in a vacuum chamber.

Oleg -- Yes, treknobabble is garbage. I've made a distinction in my own mind between Science Fiction and 'Techno-drama'. Real SciFi actually has a plot that turns on the effects of scientific issues on how we see the universe and our place in it. Techno-drama is just soap opera with technological stage props and techno-babble. All but a handful of Star Trek episodes are nothing but Techno-drama.

[ 11 May 2002, 01:15: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Re: Next patch requests
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes they do. Albeit a Vacumm chamber filled with Xenons I think.

The Ion Engines that JPL is testing goes into the Ionosphear, charges up Ions, makes a "wall" of Dense Ions and gets out and push http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif into a great distance... I think.

The Thing with the Ion engines is all it needs are Electricity that are generated by the Solar Panels, rather than Chemical fuels which run out.

Although you can't use Ion engins in a planet: It'll just cause electroshock to anything that surrounds Kenedy Space Center.

Re: Next patch requests
 

If there is just ONE thing Malfador does, this should be it: give the AI some better movement strategies in combat. The following would at least TRIPLE AI effectiveness, especially if the same strategy was (optionally)NOT made available to humans (who I am sure use it always in tactical combat. I call it "just out of range". The AI usually moves right into the human's range without thinking, giving him first shot. As any human knows, first shot means guaranteed victory (I mean 100%) in a one-on-one all tech environment with equally good and optimal ships, no matter how good the opponent, and is a BIG advantage at any time. A single human ship in tactical combat can often take out a superior AI fleet without losing a single component as it is now. The game is just too easy in this respect. But suppose the AI practiced "just out of range", stopping his advance as a human would (i.e. stopping at distance 1+ opponent's minimum range + his number of moves) and let him come to you). That would really even the playing field and make strategic and simultaneous combat far more challenging for the humnan player. It can't be that difficult to program and would make a world of difference. Secondly, if they can do TWO things, teach the AI how to design better ships, using worms, subverters, talisman and ionic dispersers, the things that make the critical difference in who wins strategic combat between equally good designers (at least this is my experience to date). The first is, however, the key thing as the latter can be done with mods.

Re: Next patch requests
 

The biggest problem is humans can always find a way to exploit the AI, no matter what Aaron does to make the AI better. Of course you can crush the computer in tatical combat because you can react to thousands of different situations in a thousand ways. The AI has just a limited number of choices. If you want a challenging game...then don't cheat the AI by trading worthless junk for stuff, use strategic combat, things like that. You'll the notice the game becomes much more difficult.

Re: Next patch requests
 

Another move strategy that humans use in tactical combat that the AI could use to advantage but doesn't is the following. This we could call "moving in and out of range". The cleanest example is in attacking a stationary target which has a certain range, say a WP or a ship with engines knocked out. The human moves into range, shoots and moves back to distance (1+opponent's range). It seems trivial, but the AI now sits still within a planet's range and lets himself get knocked to pieces unnecessarily. Once again. it can't be all that difficult to program. Perhaps the movement strategy should be split into two parts (1) before shooting (2) after shooting, to give the possibility of more variation. for example. (1) "optimal range" AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE (i.e. no parallel moves as the AI does now) followed by (2) move "just out of range" if possible.

Re: Next patch requests
 

Catain Kwok, I agree and for that reason I don't use tactical combat any more. But what I am trying to do here is suggest that Malfador improve AI strategical combat by using some simple moves of the kind that a human would use in tactical combat, thus evening the playing field a little.

Re: Next patch requests
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I have lost planets to unmodded, standard AIs that did exactly what you describe.

Re: Next patch requests
 

The destrutction of ion stroms is still not reported in the log.

Sometimes, the ministers add itens ti queues of shipyards under human control (example: i use some space stations with huge cargo capability to build units in a loop, not minister controled of course, and sometimes appear ships/etc added to the queue.

Re: Next patch requests
 

If the Intelligence make a ship turn to us, in the log they report it but the go button take us to the place it appenned and not to the ship itself.
I think need to be fixed.

Re: Next patch requests
 

I always felt that the possibility of "move-fire-move" was problematic and opened the possibility of very unbalanced combats. Personally I would prefer that the ships can't move any more (only in the same combat turn of course) after they fired. That was the rule in SE III and I don't see the reason why MM changed this.