.com.unity Forums - Things we'd like to see in the next patch

.com.unity Forums (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/index.php)

- Space Empires: IV & V (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=20)

- - Things we'd like to see in the next patch (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=7099)

Re: Things we\'d like to see in the next patch

Quote:

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />About the 'easier way to get population of different race', I do think migrations shall be allowed during partner kingdoms, just like USA and UK. If players could upload some population while download same amount population, AND not making that planet dormed, that shall be allowed.

Trading for a race that breathes the same atmosphere accomplishes nothing except make your people angry.

You can't undome any new planets, and you suffer from the "alien population" happiness penalty.
<hr /></blockquote>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:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />About the 'interceptor and bomber classification' I mentioned on Last message, I've tried to edit game data (based on Prportions mod) to achieve it. Simply two major concerns:...

Adding (or removing) supply storage to the fighter's hull (in vehiclesize.txt) would solve the first problem.
The second problem is easily solved by adding restrictions to the components. One-per-vehicle would prevent someone from adding both types of engine.<hr /></blockquote>Thanks, I've already done both of them it before I post my idea.

Quote:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />If a planet isn't building anything, it's either well developed (filled all facility slots) or not given suitable instruction yet. I would like to see new planet status icon that represents 'no space yard there and all facility slots are filled with highest tech buildings'. Then I may just sort them and pick the planets without that icon.

Can't you just sort the colonies by facility slots used, and then just scroll down to the empty ones, and deal with whichever ones have no black-and-yellow construction in progress icon?<hr /></blockquote>Yes I can. I just want a more convenience tool. If 'next planet' could skip planets that have that new icon it would be even better.

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:

Trading for a race that breathes the same atmosphere accomplishes nothing except make your people angry

Not true. Put 2 million Terrans on a planet. in 10 turns you'll have 3 million population.

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