Re: Balance Mod
 

hi Kwok

There is no file there.... or am i really being thick.."answers on a postcard..."

Drew

Re: Balance Mod
 

It's attached to the first post in that thread.

Re: Balance Mod
 

Kwok could you post here or on your web site... im really having a bad day cant get at it at all.

NOTE TO SELF LOG IN!!!!!!


Thanks

Drew

Re: Balance Mod
 

An alternative download for the intel script is here:
http://www.captainkwok.net/files/scr...telligence.zip

Extract to your Balance Mod's data folder.

Re: Balance Mod
 

I've added a help and FAQs page for the Balance Mod. I could use some more content - so let me know if there's something you want added...

Help: http://www.captainkwok.net/balancemodhelp.php
FAQS: http://www.captainkwok.net/balancemodfaqs.php

Re: Balance Mod
 

In the BM can you use Intel actions that you have not researched, yet?

For example: At Intel 1. Can I lend Intel Points to a ally even though lending Intel requires level 5?

If I'm at Intel 1, then choose "Sabotage Empire wide" will I carry out the action like normal, not at all or at a diminished rate?

Re: Balance Mod v1.09 AI Update
 

It's not a balance mod bug, it's the same in stock.

Re: Balance Mod
 

Greetings.

I'd like a couple of testers to try out the next version (v1.10) of the Balance Mod. I just need some feedback to see how the AI is doing under different game setups etc.

Send me an e-mail or PM with your contact info if you're interested...

Re: Balance Mod
 

Would these new AI files work in an ongoing game or only in a new game?
At the moment I am in two large games, where it would be interesting to see differences in the AI (especially regarding attacking warp points as I mentioned earlier), but I am afraid I don't have the time to start new games.

Re: Balance Mod
 

It'd have to be a new game, v1.10 is not compatible with earlier versions. But, the updated AI scripts should be ok if you just wanted to swap them in.

Re: Balance Mod
 

Here's a sneak peak at the current change log for v1.10:

Version 1.10:

XX. Fixed - Error in ShipExperience.txt was preventing combat bonuses due to experience from being applied
XX. Changed - Increased the maintenance cost for ships and units to stock values
XX. Changed - Armor reduced to 5kT size
XX. Changed - Pictures for 5kT Supply Storage and 5kT Ordnance Storage components
XX. Changed - Reduced Intel defense modifier
XX. Changed - Increased Supply and Ordnance storage on planets
XX. Changed - Reduced the ordnance supplied by Emergency Reordnance Pods
XX. Changed - Drone Launchers count towards Carrier requirements
XX. Changed - Small Rocket Pods can now be placed on troops
XX. Fixed - Medical Ship design type could not be choosen by players
XX. Changed - Removed Green Stars
XX. Changed - Increased storage amounts for resource storage facilities
XX. Changed - Reduced Storage tech area to 11 levels and increased its cost
XX. Changed - Reduced Medical Treatment tech area to 5 levels and increased its cost
XX. Changed - Reduced Medical Lab facility to 5 levels
XX. Changed - Lots of little changes to facility costs and structure amounts
XX. Changed - Genetic Recoding Labs now has a ground combat modifier ability
XX. Changed - Reduced Temporal Vacation Service facility to 5 levels
XX. Changed - Reduced Urban Pacification Center facility to 5 levels
XX. Changed - Reduced Psychic Scanner to 11 levels
XX. Changed - Reduced Fate Shrine to 5 levels
XX. Changed - Reduced Nature Shrine to 5 levels
XX. Changed - Reduced Time Shrine to 5 levels
XX. Changed - Re-organized Religious Technology facility availability
XX. Changed - Interspersed Climate Modification Plant and Value Improvement Plant in Planet Utilization tech area
XX. Changed - Seeker weapons can now be placed on Inner hull slots
XX. Fixed - Various typos in component and facility data files
XX. Fixed - Sergetti ships were sometimes designed without weapons
XX. Fixed - Norak fighters and troops were sometimes designed without weapons
XX. Fixed - Druschoka Attack Ships were sometimes designed without weapons*
XX. Fixed - AIs were no longer immediately hostile to human players in AI team mode
XX. Fixed - AI ships and fleets were not resupplying as often as required*
XX. Fixed - Error in Medical Ship minister
XX. Fixed - Ships weren't always choosing the most appropriate fleet to join
XX. Fixed - Error in AI selection of systems to attack
XX. Fixed - The AI was never giving up, never surrending*
XX. Added - AI will use SY Ships to construct remote defense bases
XX. Added - AI will break their treaties with the Mega Evil player
XX. Changed - AI will now use Carriers for Drone Carrier design type
XX. Changed - Made the AI's selection of facilities more dynamic
XX. Changed - Made the AI's vehicle purchase selection more efficient
XX. Changed - Improved the AI's handling of resources
XX. Fixed - AI wasn't using Fighter and Drone Groups effectively
XX. Updated - AI Scripts

* Item added in AI Patch for v1.09

Re: Balance Mod
 

Very nice changelist! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Wasn't it that way in stock? Didn't you increase it to 10kT to make adding armor to ships less repetitive and reduce slot wastage?

Yay! Surprise drone carrier attacks FTW! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

They were immediately hostile and you fixed it so they're not, or vice versa?

Hehe, nice Galaxy Quest reference http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Ooh, like in SE2 how they put defense bases on warp points... Should make Neutrals a LOT more interesting http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Balance Mod
 

Actually when I first started the mod, armor was 10kT in stock as well. I didn't change it to 5kT after stock at the time primarily due to concern about the number of armor slots - but it turns out it wasn't really an issue. I might be do a 5kT and 10kT Light and Heavy armor (same hitpoint/kT ratio) for user preference.

The galaxy quest reference was first used by RogerN when he reported the no surrender issue and so I threw in the changelog.

I wanted the AI to get somewhat ornery about human players, but not necessarily declare war right away. However, they were being too friendly, which meant they were less aggressive.

The remote Defense Bases scheme is still being tested... often before the SY Ship gets to a WP it gets an order to build another ship instead. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

Re: Balance Mod
 

Any ETA?

Thanks,

Javaslinger

Re: Balance Mod
 

I'm aiming for next Friday (Aug 31) before I go away for the Labour Day weekend.

Re: Balance Mod
 

Hi Kwok

Are you still looking for testers before you release??
If so im up for it.

Drew

Re: Balance Mod
 

Hopefully I'll have something ready to go for the testers. I had hope to debug the new AI facility scheme and send out the update - but this weekend got consumed by softball playoffs and painting!

Re: Balance Mod
 

Looks good.

I just noticed that normal baseships have no defense modifier. I assume they should have a -60% modifier, since that is the defense modifier organic baseships have.

Also, starbases have only a -20% defense modifier, while space stations have a -30% modifier.

Re: Balance Mod
 

Is it possible to put the obscuration level in the description for storm, asteroids, warp points etc. so we know what sensors are needed to see the sector?

Also, I had a problem where 25 fighters with rocket pods using max range strategy could not hit a frigate moving away from them. It seemed they stayed just out of range so the rockets never hit (and were all destroyed by this crappy little ship which was very annoying). Is there anything that can be tweaked to correct this?

I looked to see if I could change the strategy so they stayed at range 40 (rockets have range 50), but there are only three options, close, medium and long range which I saw defined in settings as 50, 100 and 150. Do you know any way I can use these fighters without having them fire at point blank or out of range?

The requirements for torpedo weapons is incorrect in the tech chart for 1.09. I think there were other inconsistencies, but I don't remember exactly what now.

One other thing - the increase in cost and effectiveness of the shields seemed a bit unbalanced to me - I almost regretted researching level 2.

Re: Balance Mod
 

I'll add descriptions in for warp points and storms with obscuration effects. I might not put in the implicit level, but will indicate if it's beyond low level sensors etc.

The max range strategy is sort of a problem with SE:5, which may or may not be fixed in the v1.50-ish patch. With a short range of 50, optimal range will more or less work the same as max range but without the "target leading bug".

I fixed most of the tech chart typos for v1.10.

The defense modifiers were typos in the formulas but have been fixed. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

Re: Balance Mod
 

Thanks man http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Edit] Do you think solar collectors should be made to create a small amount of supplies per second in combat? Would be useful against supply draining weapons etc.

Re: Balance Mod
 

Are warp points now not all the same?

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that the ability to have different types of warp points (size, damage, duration, etc) was not functioning? Or maybe it was just the size?

I think it would be awesome if the size part worked. So certain back doors into areas would only be able to be transited by smaller ships and larger ships would be able to be intercepted at choke points.....

It would add a lot to the possibility of 'designing' maps or scenarios....

Javaslinger

Re: Balance Mod
 

There's no way to generate supplies in combat.

---

Warp Points in the mod can have different abilities, such as obscuration or combat sensor disruption. The sizes don't have any effect though.

Re: Balance Mod
 

Another thing, would you please allow the long range scanners to be used on drones?

[Edit] Something else I noticed with the drones is the organic large drone is quite different than the normal large drone in combat. The organic one displays much smaller, and seems to get 2X movement when the normal ones don't. I didn't check the crystal ones or other sizes.

Re: Balance Mod
 

I'll be away for the long weekend - likely without access to the interweb. It's likely that the next patch for SE:V will be out before v1.10 of the Balance Mod... if so, to make v1.09 compatible - add the new lines from settings.txt into the Balance Mod's settings.txt file.

Re: Balance Mod
 

Can you upload a Temp version with the lines already in it?

Re: Balance Mod
 

It looks like I'll be back home before anything is released, so it's a none issue. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

Re: Balance Mod
 

Kwok I realized a small problem with fighter attacks on planets in BM:
You have a damage for killing population of
Population Amount Killed Per Damage Point := 0.04
which makes any damage less than 25 ineffective. Therefore some fighter weapons especially in earlier games will not kill population at all. Curiously the structure points of the planet decrease to a certain amount then it stops completely even if there is no real damage at all. In one occasion this caused even the game to crash.

Re: Balance Mod
 

Quick question. I installed BM 1.09 (or latest) plus FQM 5.0 beta 11, followed your installation instructions. Now when I go to start a game for some reason I get Standard game, BM, and a FQM, when I go on the FQM it says something about unable to load a logo, pretty sure I'm not supposed to even have that as a choice, but just want to be sure, (since they both seem to work) but I which one do I need to play BM w/ FQM?

Re: Balance Mod
 

That depends on how exactly you combined them. Copy/move the files from the FQM folder into the BM folder? If thats the case, you'd want to play the BM mod entry.

Re: Balance Mod
 

Yes, copied the BM, then moved the FQM stuff into the new BM folder and renamed it BM FQM, as the BM readme stated to do.

Re: Balance Mod
 

It sounds as if your BM-FQM folder is contained within another folder in the Game Types folder... this would cause the image missing error and the non-listing of the hybrid mod as a game type.

Re: Balance Mod Updates
 

Greetings!

Just a quick post to let you know what's happening with the Balance mod. Currently I'm working on v1.10, which will be released with the next SE:V patch. It's a major update and will not be compatible with any previous versions. After that, I'll finish up v1.11, which will fix any problems with v1.10 and add a couple of AI features. That version will be the last update for a bit as I turn my attention to my new project. However, there will be a couple of AI updates as time permits.

v1.10 - Late September
v1.11 - Mid-October (1 Yr Anniversary!)

A few observations
 

Hi!

I finally bought SE:V, hoping it was ready for prime-time. And I started out with the Balance mod... because it seemed to have generally positive feedback. And while I like the mod a lot, I have some feedback of my own. Let me clarify - I like the mod a lot, and have a lot of positive feedback about it, but I don't have time to waste praising you, so the positive feedback should be understood, and I will only address items that I think can be improved. So, please don't feel that this is criticism.


1) Bugs.
There are a lot of cases when the expected results of the next level of a technology includes something like "Small Fighter 4" and "Medium Fighter 1". When you research it, you get only the medium version, not the upgraded light version. True also for Satellites, and IIRC unit weapon mounts.

2) Trade and Resources.
Trade at max 30% is just too high... and, I think, resource extractor output is too high, as well. Even with units and buildings requiring maintenance, I cannot spend all my resources. I have a large empire of 50 colonies, 4 of which build colony ships nonstop, and several others of which build satellites and fighters nonstop. I trade with 4 other empires, at 30%. I have never researched any extractor technologies. And yet - 75% of my minerals, 50% of my organics, and 30% of my radioactives all come from my homeworld... in last 40 colonies I settled, I did not build a single extractor. Yet I run at an immense surplus! I have never felt any resource pressure, like I did constantly in SEIV, and I was only able to drop my minerals below 100k for a single turn when I upgraded all my research centers to level 3. I don't even care about resource %'s on new planets I find, since I'm only going to build resupply depots, shipyards, and research centers anyway... even on planets that are 150% across the board. Overall, aside from my homeworld, I have 1 mineral colony, 2 organic colonies, and 2 radioactive colonies... all (IIRC) unbreathable. And I've never felt any pressure at all.
I think 20% is a very good cap on maximum trade. And level 1 Extractors should extract maybe 800 resources... certainly not 2000.

3) Fighters, Fighter Armor, and Rocket Pods.
These are 10% the size of capital ship missiles and 50% as strong... and direct fire (with a fighter's inherent accuracy boost), so they cannot be stopped by point-defense. That seems way too strong for my taste, and logically inconsistent. I would suggest making them weaker, greatly increasing the ordinance use, and considering making them seekers.
I'd also be happier with fighters if they retained their high combat speed, but were REALLY SLOW in map movement. For example, currently, a small fighter with 4x ion engine 1 has 10 normal speed and 15 combat speed. And it does not really need a carrier. If that same fighter had 15 combat speed but only 5 normal speed, carriers would start to make a lot more sense... and I generally think of fighters as things with a high top speed, but insufficient fuel volume to maintain that high speed over long distances.
As for small armor... why is it (initially) twice as strong per Kt as ship armor? It is really, really good. I would still use it routinely if it was equivalent to ship armor. Fighter emissive armor, on the other hand, is worthless. Small Emissive Armor 1 is twice as big as normal Small Armor for the same protection... and sheds 1 damage per hit, which is worthless. You are ALWAYS better with 2 normal armor. Same with Small Emissive Armor 2. It is only at Small Emissive Armor 3 that you will break-even with the normal armor, versus fighter-size weapons. But versus point defense and normal-size weapons, Small Emissive Armor is always just junk. I suggest it be made 1 KT, like Small Armor, with the same protection as Small Armor, but twice as expensive... just like with ship armor.

4) Colony Modules.
I routinely scout with colony ships instead of scouts, because they are so similar in price - which, conceptually, is mind-boggling. The initial game is just a mad land-grab, pumping out a colony every 2-3 turns per shipyard... and landing on everything, even unbreathable tiny planets, because the cost is so trivial. I think colony modules should be perhaps 10x as expensive, and hold fewer colonists (say, 200k storage). But, at a bare minimum, you could probably make colony modules 2x or 3x as expensive - say, 5000m, 8000o, 2000r, without anyone complaining.

5) Ship Sizes.
I really like the QNP. However... I think it may be a little too extreme. I find that the next generation of ship is generally WORSE than the previous generation! For example, level-3 Frigates are 300Kt, and level-1 Destroyers are 350Kt. At max engines and minimal required components (life support, bridge, crew quarters), they have 170Kt and 180Kt free. Yet the frigate is much cheaper, uses less supply to move, and has a better defensive bonus... so... I would never build Destroyers! The same is true for Small Fighter 3 vs Medium Fighter 1, Light Carrier vs Carrier, and Small Transport vs Medium Transport. There is no incentive to increase shipbuilding technology when, given a choice, I build the older version anyway. I designed a Medium Transport 2... and noticed that it cost almost twice as much as a Light Transport 3, used twice as much supply (making supply modules inefficient), but only carried 50% more cargo! And, of course, could not go through small warp points.
So, I suggest you reduce the ramp in engine requirements. For example, medium fighters could use 5 rather than 6 engines, with a movement divisor of 5, and then they would at least have more room than small fighters, instead of the same amount of room with a higher cost and worse defense. Medium freighters should have 200 crew and maybe 7 engines. Light carriers and frigates should be a little smaller - say, 250 and 700 at level 3, with the required engines and crew for a light carrier perhaps reduced a little. Large Satellite Mount should perhaps require 110 Kt (medium) instead of 100 Kt (small), or else the defense bonus makes small satellites strictly better. Right now, the only non-minimal-sized vehicles I care about are the Light Cruiser, since it can use large ship mounts, and Medium Platform, since it can use heavy mounts. Otherwise... there is no reason to advance beyond level-3 of Frigate, Light Carrier, Small Transport, Small Satellite, and Small Fighter, since you spend precious research money but don't really get any advantages.

6) Anti-Proton Beams.
These are just way too good. Compared to DUCs, they consume no ordinance... have a +25% or so to hit at max range... AND do 30% more damage at max range... and 120% more at min range. I mean, outclassing DUCs is fine, but at least the damage at max range should be less, I think. If they had -40% damage at all ranges, so that they were 35% better than DUCs at range 1 and 20% worse at range 9, I would still always use them for the hit% and ordinance advantages. Especially considering that Meson Blasters have the same prereq as Anti-Proton Beams... there is just no comparison, APBs are vastly better. Meson Blasters are roughly as good as DUCs, though I prefer DUCs due to the better range. So - Meson Blasters have no reason to exist. Perhaps they could do 20% less damage, use 2 supplies, but have a 1.5 second reload? That might make them interesting against fighters, at least.

7) Sensors.
This seems to be the no-brainer to research from turn 1. They ramp so quickly - and not only give you a huge exploration boost, but even a good combat boost! I suggest making Sensor research slightly more expensive, say +25%. Or else, making the initial sensor range higher - say, 5 for Sensors 1 - and gaining +1 per level. Considering that engines get a 5% boost in speed per level, going from level 1 sensors to level 2 sensors increases the combat bonus by 100% and increases the sensor area by perhaps 150%. That is really incredible.
I think that range 5 for sensors 1 and +1 range per level would be best.

8) Ship Capture.
These start out so good, at 200 marines, that +20 per level is just too slow; there is little point in researching it past level 1. Starting them out at 100 marines, with +20 per level and the same research costs, would feel much better to me.

9) Resupply, Cargo, Storage.
These increase too slowly with research to bother with. It might be worthwhile to research a single level of resupply and cargo, because they are cheap... but at +10% per level, that is as far as I would go. +20% per level - with levels that are all 50% more expensive - seems more reasonable. And I don't really understand the logic of separating cargo from storage. They are both logically the same thing, and there is little incentive to research either of them, so why not put them together? I would never even consider researching storage as it is now.

10) Armor and Shields.
Armor starts at 60Kt/10Kt, has no prereqs, and gains +10Kt per level. That's a ratio of 6, +1/lv.
Shields have Physics prereq and (including the structure of the generator) start at 230Kt/30Kt, +20 per level. That's a ratio of 7, +.66/lv.
If you spend an equal amount of research, armor will be WAY better than shields. And considering that armor protects versus damaging warps and mines, while shields protect versus boarding and crystal shard guns, it is a tossup as to which is better. But generally... armor seems too strong, and to ramp too fast, while shields seem about right, but to ramp too slowly. Personally, I think armor should start at 50Kt/10Kt and gain +5Kt per level. Armor in SEIV was a bit weak, but this stuff is beastly... at level 12, armor is still only 65k to research a new level, but already gives an incredible 170Kt in a 10Kt slot!
Also: Scattering Armor 1, 2, and 3 are worthless (probably higher levels, too, but I have not really thought much about it yet). +3% evade on a 1000Kt structure ship, for example, gives... +30Kt. Whereas you get 120Kt of armor instead of 2 normal armors, which would have given 340Kt combined. So you lose 220Kt of armor to gain 30Kt of evasion, and pay a lot more for it!
At size 20Kt, I would give Scattering Armor an absolute minimum base armor of 200, +10 per level, or it will just be strictly worse than normal armor. And even then it would only be useful when combined with very good ECM versus very bad combat sensors, at long range.
And as I mentioned in the Fighters section, Small Armor is much too good compared to ship armor, and Small Emissive Armor is pretty much useless. Having them simply be 10% as strong as the ship versions, at 20% the price, and with Small Emissive retaining the 1, 2, ... absorbtion progression, makes more sense to me.


11) Engines, Afterburners, and Solar Sails.
Engines generate a large amount of movement that is then divided by some modifier. Solar Sails and Afterburners generate movement that is NOT divided by a modifier, which is confusing. Especially considering that fighter movement seems to be multiplied by 1.5 to determine combat speed in kps, it is hard to figure out how fast things will go. I suggest that you mention in the descriptions of Afterburners and Sails that movement points will not be divided by the modifier, and also (in fighter engine descriptions) how they affect combat speed. And furthermore, there is no indication of how much supply engines, sails, and afterburners gobble... adding that to the descriptions would be very useful. Ideally, the design description window would mention the ship's combat speed and supply usage per move, but since it doesn't, it needs to be in the component descriptions.
Also, as far as engines go, it seems to me that they start out too powerful, with too much storage, and ramp up in speed too (relatively) slowly. There is little incentive to research engine technology... personally, I would start Ion Engines 1 at about 500 supply and 80 movement, with +20 supply and +5 movement per level. I realize that
Lastly, I don't know if this is possible in a mod - probably not - but it would be nice if there was some relationship between acceleration and turn rate and engines. Or at least, components that affected them, like attitude thrusters and inertial compensators. It is odd for a ship with 0 engines to have the same accel as a ship with 5 engines.

Re: A few observations
 

I totally agree. I don't know why Aaron hardcoded it that way.

The other option is to max it at 0% by setting the trade increase per month to zero in settings.txt http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif

It would be great with an arbitrary max in settings.txt and a slider/spinner in the treaty options...


Re: Armor vs shields
Shields regenerate for free, while armor damage sends you back home to the SY.
If you're winning battles, the shields are better since you don't have to worry about repairs... if you're losing, armor is better since you don't have to worry about repairs. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: A few observations
 

Lots of little items to respond to.

The first item is actually an SE5 display issue.

There were no settings at the time v1.09 was created that could alter the trade percentages. That will be changing with the next SE:V patch. You're high trade income in that game is really misleading how much you'll need to build resource facilities otherwise.

You'll want carriers to move fighters to non-colony systems.

There was an error in the Small Emissive Armor structure formula. It should have nearly the same HPs as Small Armor. It's emissive ability is only really worthwhile versus other fighter/troops as you'd expect. Although Small Armor starts at a bit higher kT/HP ratio than regular armor, it actually ends up at the same value as larger armor.

Rocket Pods look pretty good, but they do use ordnance and they have a low fire rate. Their overall damage ratios are similar to most other small weapons.

I've added more cost to Colony Components for v1.10.

Don't neglect that hulls can be upgraded, and those iffy level 1 350kT destroyers can easily be made into 400kT destroyers with a bit of research, which are also able to use large ship mounts. The remainder of the ship hulls are more intertwined, so it's usually a close equivalent when the next hull becomes available. There's also the addition of 5kT LS/CQ components in v1.10, that will help save space on some of the larger designs.

Medium and large freighters have had their upper limits for size increased, so this should help improve their space factor.

Originally fighters/troops were to be upgradeable, so most of the sizing was done with that in mind. It's kind of been neglected, but I'll end up doing something to make those first level units a bit more worthwhile.

There are no size limits to Warp Points. It was never implemented.

DUCs are a low tech early weapon, they shouldn't be comparable to more advanced energy weapons. However, they are extremely cheap and rushing their research while other players research Physics level 2, can succeed as an early game tactic. Meson Blasters enjoy some good damage ratios when used with an appropriate short range strategy. They're smaller and allow more flexible small ship designs. They also have a 10kT PD version, which is very handy as well.

The upgrades for sensors have to worthwhile per level - anything less than 5% per level is useless. Keep in mind ECM advances at 4% per level, so assuming most players research these areas at about the same rate, you're only really seeing a few percentage points improvement anyway. Also note, that due to additive to-hit modifiers, 10% Combat Sensors are not twice as effective as 5% sensors.

Boarding components are 20kT and are generally defeated by an equivalent size of crew quarters... so I don't think that's unreasonable.

Re: A few observations
 

Thanks for reading and replying to my post!


Well... I mean... my high trade income is important, and of course, too high. But I don't understand why resource extractor output was nearly tripled from SE:IV, too. The upkeep on units and facilities merit a higher extractor output... but not 2000, IMO. Even without any trade, resource extraction is just so grossly high that my empire's tiny economic base could support 50% of my total usage... with only 15% of my colonies doing any extraction, only 1 of them breathable.

Freighters do better. They're cheaper, hold more (using cargo bays instead of fighter bays), have lower maintenance, and can unload unlimited fighters in space in one turn with a single fighter bay... which is better then sending them out in flights from a carrier. Once you get through a wormhole (assuming the other end is safe), a carrier becomes a liability, to some extent. If fighters were slow in map movement, carriers would make much more sense, though I admit this is personal taste.

But rocket pod damage is frontloaded, and you don't need the fighters to survive after the initial salvo to fire a second, anyway, so reload rate and ordinance are not really all that important. Can a fighter really live long enough to run out of ordinance? If he did, that would be after 10 shots, or 500 damage PER POD, even without an ordinance module! And more importantly... Emissive Armor can render a ship immune to normal fighter weapons, but not rocket pods. They get through point defense and emissive armor.

After many simulations, I was shocked to discover that I could not build anti-ship fighters with armor, rocket pods, sensors, and ECM that could beat my anti-fighter frigate with APBs, point-defense, sensors, ECM, and emissive armor, at equivalent costs. So perhaps I am wrong. But, on the other hand, small rocket pods seem so much better than an equivalent tonnage of capital ship missiles that it is hard for me to feel like they are both balanced relative to each other.

Good!

I realize that, but... it is very disappointing to discover that destroyers 1 and 2 are strictly inferior to the frigate 3 that you will already have when you get destroyers. There's no reason for destroyers 1 and 2 to exist, as long as frigates are so big (and faster, cheaper, more fuel-efficient, and more evasive).

Essentially... I don't think you should have to max out a ship type's technology for it to show any improvement over the old ship type. In that case, it is better to research strictly improving technologies - namely, anything else. Even destroyer 3 is only questionably better than frigate 3, given the disadvantages in speed, fuel efficiency, cost, and evasion you pay for a mere 60kT of extra usable space. That is to say, it is NOT better, unless you have pretty good large ship mount technology, too.

It is a close equivalent in usable space, but the new model is much more expensive, has lower evade, is slower, and uses more fuel. So... the shiny new technology is generally going to be a bad choice.

OK, good; I'll look forward to that. Though I rather think that the medium freighter would be happier with 8 engines / 80 points per move, rather than 10/100... which makes them strictly inferior to small freighters for the first however many levels are needed until/unless they ever reach 800kt.

Well, warp points still SAY they have a size limit, so I never tried to push a larger ship through...

Sorry, I was unclear. To rephrase: Like most of the things in your mod, I agree with your rate of advance for combat sensors. The problem I have, which is entirely subjective, is with basic sensors. I'd feel better if they started with a range of 5 and increased at 1 per level.

No, not unreasonable at all. What I mean is, I would never research those components past the first level, because they increase so slowly, and the first level is already good enough to use for the rest of the game. This would be true unless they increase faster or start weaker.

Re: A few observations
 

I agree with Saber Cherry regarding ship size. What's the point in making the first level(s) of a technology useless? Why not just make it cost more to research in the first place?

Re: A few observations
 

I agree that resources are too often in excess. I had originally planned to bring back the standard maintenance factors for v1.10, but I preferred keeping them at their current values and opted to cut resource production across the board. You’ll find it more agreeable.

I’ve debated about adjusting the Frigate/Destroyer transition so that Medium Light Hulls become available at level 2 of Light Hulls – which would be more consistent with other hull transitions. This would help make the first level of Destroyers more useful.

The default supply capacity and usage is proportional to the number of engines, so for example, a Medium Freighter does not have half the range of a Small Freighter.

Medium Freighters can also mount Space Yards at level 1 (much more easily in v1.10 since they are 300kT) which is a good motivational factor for using them.

Fighters are already slower than any ship on the system map, so they're not generally an offensive weapon. Using fighters often for system movement also drains their supplies quite quickly and without some place to resupply them, they quickly become useless.

Re: A few observations
 

Re: frigate/destroyer transition - I think moving medium-light hulls to level 2 of light hulls would be a good idea.

Re: boarding components - yes, exactly what SaberCherry said - they are either too strong starting out or too weak at the top level, so it's not really worth researching additional levels past the first!

Re: trade - isn't there something in the data files (TreatyElements.txt?) that lets you restrict the trade percentages available via a treaty across the board?

Re: sensors - actually I think the first few levels of sensors are too much of a no-brainer, given the ranges of the basic sensor component! Level 1 is a wimpy 3 hexes, but level 2 gives you another 2 hexes bringing you up to 5, and level 3 gives you another 2 hexes bringing you up to 7! So unless you research level 3 sensors early on, you are going to be spending a LOT of time surveying systems and you won't be able to see enemies that can easily see you... So how about starting basic sensors at range 4 or 5 and increasing them by 1 per level across the board?

Re: A few observations
 

This TreatyElements.txt file is a figment of your imagination. However, there are adjustable trade values added to settings.txt for the next patch.

I'm not sure why all the fuss with Boarding Parties. They double in their ability from low to max tech, as most items in the mod do. It's a good idea to research them if because you're Boarding Ships will need more support components such as Shield Depleters etc. as the game progresses. Not to mention, you get Security Stations with the same research as well.

I don't see the fuss with sensors. Big deal if it's an important tech to research at the beginning.

Re: A few observations
 

LOL, you're right about the treaty elements! I must have been thinking about victory conditions or something http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

Oh, the boarding parties do double? I guess they're reasonable then - I thought they only went up to level 5 with 300 marines apiece.

The sensor issue I think is a balance thing - if the first few levels of sensors are Really Really Important and anyone who fails to know the secret that they have to research them is going to fall significantly behind, then it seems the sensor tech is unbalanced, much like Meson Blasters were in stock - Meson Blasters were the uber weapon and if you didn't know that they were and didn't research them, you fell significantly behind. (OK, it's not all THAT serious, given that it's only 2 levels of a tech, not an entire tech with 100 levels or whatever, so you can't fall TOO far behind - but it just seems unbalanced to me!) So it's a minor balance thing, but a balance thing nonetheless.

Re: A few observations
 

I've seen the talk over at the Official forum as well on the subject of uber frigates and how the new destroyers get fraged by them. After reading this it just came to me what is wrong. If the frigate is getting bigger, why is it retaining its offensive/defensive values? I know certain people say that this is because of minaturization, and automation. Its not that the frigate is getting any bigger.

I would rather see it as it is getting bigger, or at least heavier or something. So that the time a frigate is the same size as a destroyer, then they are either equal, or that the frigate is only slightly better than the destroyer. If you want the advantage of automation or miniturization, then mod that in with components or mounts.

Re: A few observations
 

Except it's a lot more obvious. The player will be like, "Man, my sensor range is quite small", and will look to see how he can make it better. The effectiveness of a weapon compared to another is less obvious.

Re: A few observations
 

None of the ship sizes overlap in the Balance Mod as they do in stock. The larger size of the ship does come into play for acceleration and turning, so a 250kT Frigate will be a bit more nimbler than a 300kT one.

Re: A few observations
 

1. Change the Rocket Pods fighters to Max range strategy and they will perform better against ships. That helps them stay outside Point Defense ranges.

2. Drop armor on Fighter and squeeze shields on it.

3. Bomber load out: Rocket Pod, Shields, Cockpit, Life, Engines.

Try that at Max range against your Anti-Fighter Frigates.

Re: A few observations
 

Any ETA on BM update, Kwok?

Re: A few observations
 

I should be able to post the update tonight.

Re: A few observations
 

Pleeeaaassssseeeeee make a 1.09a, so MANY of us can continue our PBW games that are MANY turns into the game!

Yes, I'm begging. :-)

Re: A few observations
 

Ugh, there's a few minor AI issues to resolve before I can post v1.10. It'll probably push until Saturday night.

---

I will do something for v1.09, but probably not until the next weekend.