![]() |
Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
Quote:
You can't undome any new planets, and you suffer from the "alien population" happiness penalty. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Let me give an example: - I am playing a race breathing methane - I have an ally that breathes oxygen - My transporter loaded 40M population of my race - This transporter is moved to an ally planet, which is a rocky methane planet, domed since my ally don't breath methane. - In this case, I hope that I may unload 40M methane population and upload some oxygen pop. - The population exchange action is allowed only if the incoming race can remove the domes of a planet, maybe not immediately (if some original population left there) but his ally can really benefit from it. Exchanging transporters with population is not migration but politic tricks :< Quote:
The second problem is easily solved by adding restrictions to the components. One-per-vehicle would prevent someone from adding both types of engine.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Thanks, I've already done both of them it before I post my idea. Quote:
Sorry for my bad english syntax, and thanks for the advices. Maybe someone there feels that I am an unexperienced player, but I do accomplished more than 20 SE4 games, and keep reading forum for more than half year. I just didn't post before. |
Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
I'd really like to see this bug fixed (AI not using bonus correctly, posted by Oleg):
http://www.shrapnelgames.com/cgi-bin...;f=23;t=007152 It shouldn't be too hard too fix but would have an enormous impact on AI performance. And ofcourse I'd like to see the AI use captured populations, but that would probably require a lot of work from Malfador... |
Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
another one cent idea: a new warhead.txt file that defines whether a damage type will bypass something or not -
DAMAGE TYPE := Engines Only Bypass Normal Shield := False Bypass Phased Shield := False Bypass Armor Ability := True Damage Armor := False Damage module only terms := 1 Damage module 1 := Standand Ship Movement DAMAGE TYPE := Mine Warhead Bypass Normal Shield := True Bypass Phased Shield := True Bypass Armor Ability := True Damage Armor := True Damage module only Number:= 0 etc... Or maybe the boolean values could be some numbers, which identity damage type vs specific module, such as Quarter2Shields (400%). |
Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
Quote:
Now remove the population and put 1 million Terrans and 1 million Cue Capp on the same planet. In 10 turns time you'll have 4 million population. Doesn't seem like a big deal but in Proportions games, for example... |
Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
As per other thread.
Fix the Message system... Ability to edit Messages... Ability to view previous Messages... |
Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
i still think he should open the game up....
That way we can code our own changes... Also... Another thing i would like to see. Set level for defences at a location. IE.... You deploy mines above a warp point that will be set off against anyone below Partnership... OR WP and Mines at this planet will fire on any ship below Military alliance. |
Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
Immigration/Emigration/Expatriates/Foreign Nationals!
|
Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
There are two things I would like to see in the newest patch.
1) the option of excluding certain tech areas from research if a player has a particular racial tech already selected (very useful to avoid the :honor system: in many mods), and 2) the change in refueling at starbases modified (again). It would be useful and justifiable if a ship that Mothballs and then is eventually Unmothballed at a base gains its full supplies. I think that is a reasonable workaround. It still puts ships out of play for a least a turn, costs a small amount of resources for the Unmothballing, and hoses crew experience. All justified by the nature of base drydock, and manditory crew reassignment (or just awesome shoreleave). But it still allows deepspace bases to be used (as they should be) as rallying points for conquest. Combat Squirrel [ October 27, 2002, 01:50: Message edited by: CombatSquirrel ] |
Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
If MM implements even a small fraction of these suggestions he is god! I wonder if we could narrow it down to some things we really want. Perhaps make a list of 10 to 20 things then we could vote on the ones we'd most like to see?
|
Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch
I'm sure it has already been said, but I'd still love to see worm holethat have a time delay between systems (the jump will take an extra turn to arrive at destination) and see worm holesthat will automatically close after a set number of turns. (After the ship opens the worm hole it can only sustain it for x # of turns, then it colapses).
That and voice commands http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:37 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.