Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">No restrictions to the number of components, IMO. If you think a component is overpowered, just change it to a bigger size or more expensive.
Devnull has got 500 mines per sector; it is always a matter of balancing minesweeping ability and size of minefields. I do not use it often, it is just a kind of Last resort sometimes in the early game.

</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I don't know PTF. It seems like a whole lot of work building several minefeilds up to 500 to match the other players.
At 100 mines and at Space Empires 4 minesweeping ability of FIVE, will give the same result. Without all that work and micromanagement. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

JLS, I would keep minefilds at the traditional 100 setting (IMHO)

I also like the AIC se4 traditional mines because they work against Human Players like Space Empires and they are cheep to buy in AIC and the mines work against all the enemy components on the ship not just a few or one. Against the AI, minefields will work early and buy enough time to prepare defenses, just like when we play against other human players http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

But if I start next to violent AIC ai race or a good AIC human player I know mines is only a delay and against some human players, se4 mines is a short delay at best http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">PTF, will bigger organic or any se4 armor protect you from armor skiping weapons?

If Temporal or Cryslonite with early armor skiping weapons and they are full of unrestricted armor turn on you we are dead. Sure shields will help me but they will have shields and a whole lot of armor = they shoot I die - I shoot I bounce off all the armor they can fit and at 10kt that would be an awful lot http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif

[ January 24, 2004, 15:26: Message edited by: QBrigid ]

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">100 minefeilds = less work in a less important se4 area.

Minesweepers on transport = I agree with PTF we should restrict this.

The removal of armor = (Enhencements that se4 v1.84 gold upgrade offers) KEEP THEM (it offers balance potential)

Cobalt Warheads = GLV, I like the way AIC has this with no restrictions and I like that you can put them on transports.

Remote mining totals = What ever, as long as it is balanced http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
Do you want to see a few hundred or a few thousand added to the net minning totals? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif

[ January 24, 2004, 15:29: Message edited by: QBrigid ]

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

I would like to see AIC reduceing the massive Enterprise hull plating to only one per ship. This is more realistic and give the organic race 6 armors for more of an edge as they should get.


PS: My claims are not just nitpicking http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ January 24, 2004, 15:17: Message edited by: QBrigid ]

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">JLS is this why you removed Engine Damage intel from the intel and AIC Psychic Intel projects only for the AI Players and not Human Players.

How about other damage that effects AI ship production?

[ January 24, 2004, 15:22: Message edited by: QBrigid ]

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

Originally posted by QBrigid:
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yes. This is no biggie that the an AI have or not have Ship Engine damage Intel, I just felt it was best for the AIC - AI Players (ONLY) not to ping each other.

- - -
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Sure there is a lot of in-game towards AI ship productions.

The obvious is Combat and a lucky Intel Planet Space Yard or BSY hit.

But a few discrete and possibly unnoticed situations would be for example.

Aggressive warp points that may disable the AI and not destroy the Ships.
Same applies to a Black Hole center and/or other system ship damaging anomalies.
(I would recomend the ship be totally destroyed or lightly damage) In this way the AI Ship may return for repair or be replaced when it is destroyed http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Systems with a Gravitational pull of (1) ONE; effects any AI ship that is in the pull, when it is out of fuel it moves one away and then the pull brings it back one; for ever stuck in this cycle. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

AI ships with a lot of fuel (or unlimited supply) when also in a gravitational pull as above, however with a pull of greater then half its normal movement may also be in the anomaly for a very long time before it escapes.(minor in nature)


When the AI Ship is in play but disabled and unable to repair, the AI Vehical Construction for its item MHAL replacement value; will be reduced in total overall productivity possibly even halted.

[ January 25, 2004, 18:50: Message edited by: JLS ]

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I definitely want an increase due to the value it will have with the FQM maps.

However, first it is important that we decide: Do we want Remote Mining for a Supplement or a Primary source of resources?

What effect do we want remote mining to have with the non-FQM maps?

[ January 25, 2004, 19:06: Message edited by: JLS ]

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

Keep it as a supplement but increase the values a bit to make it more important overall. Maps with resource rich areas in the centre of the game map makes a quick rush and constant fights over such areas to dominate the game.
Like to see MM expand the resource aspect of the game dunno how yet ?
viagra deposits to speed up planetary population growth they could be mined from black holes perhaps ?

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I agree with Paul keep robo-mines as a supplement.

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">PTF you know that is mostly what I play http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

If there are infinate ways to make resources, how FINITE will our finite games be http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You have a strong case QB, what do others think?

[ January 26, 2004, 21:42: Message edited by: JLS ]

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

JLS - "What effect do we want remote mining to have with the non-FQM maps?"

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Again I agree with Paul. In the non-FQM maps the classic se4 Asteroid system is like GOLD when playing the AIC centurion and traditional maps for there rich resource mining and Create Planet options.

With the Importance of the Classic se4 Asteroid belt, we have had countless AIC battles in the past versus greedy Human LAN opponents. Against the AIC ai Players just holding and fighting to get to it or even supremacy of that system before an unfriendly AIC ai Player COLONIZES my Classic se4 Asteroid System.

I do not want to see this lost with any new changes.

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">NO http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

I use this stratagy against Human Players. As a Temporal race I wait until they get into trouble with the AIC AI or another Human player that packs sheild depleteing weapons, knowing they switch to mainly armor, and then I pounce on them. When defensless against me, they fall very fast.

As a Temporal I really get a kick out of the false sense of security a player, particularly organic races get with se4 armor http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif


QB is right.
Now, with the se4 v184 gold. It is not that easy to get away with this, if I cant pack my ships with unlimited Armor. I can see where this can get controversial http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ January 26, 2004, 12:45: Message edited by: Grand Lord Vito ]

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">NO, I think JLS said claims are like knitting. All in a twine http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ January 26, 2004, 12:38: Message edited by: Grand Lord Vito ]

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

Thanks for the help guys, AIC v4.20 should be out shortly.

I will have the details as soon as more play testing is completed.

Thanks again.

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

Something odd is with ruins on planets in 4.1
Before you could't tell if it is "real" ruins or empty one. Now, only "real" ruina are listed under "special"in planet sorting and have that ruin symbol on the planet picture. "empty ruins" still display description but that' it. I think the mishap happened during the integration of FQM files.

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

Thanks Oleg, I will look into it.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ January 27, 2004, 15:13: Message edited by: JLS ]

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

You need to add dummy unique techs that do nothing and have the "empty" ruins be Ancient Unique, and give out those dummy tech areas. This makes the ruins icon show up, so it does not look like a dummy ruin. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I should probably remove those from the FQM Standard Version... I think I had done so at one point but added them back without thinking about it in one of the newer Versions. :-\

[ January 27, 2004, 15:21: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

Thanks Fyron http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Fyron, can you lend a hand, QBrigid has a balance question with se4 Armor in general and the advantage that may be afforded to armor skipping races. Perhaps you could help us with the mechanics.

Thanks JLS

[ January 27, 2004, 15:49: Message edited by: JLS ]

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You have a strong case QB, what do others think? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I tend to agree.
(Heavy) Armor Piercing Weapons additions to the non-racial techs, probably?

Side question: The plain armor still has got the armor ability removed, right (like in PvKs original good idea) ?

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

Leaky type armor originally appeared in P&N mod 2-3 years ago. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

No component with the Armor ability will protect you from weapons with the armor-skipping ability. Leaky armors treat armor-skipping weapons as normal weapons. Components with the Armor ability are only damaged by armor skipping weapons once there are no other components left intact on the ship that do not have the armor ability.

However, the abilities "shields from damage" and "emissive armor" are not triggered from shots by weapons with armor-skipping damage, even if they are on components that do not have the Armor ability.

If this does not answer the question, please restate it. Multiple people making multiple Posts in a row is difficult to wade through. :-\

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

JLS we have discussed the unbalance issue of the subverters for the Psychics. You were against the removal then and to-hit did help balance some but if you still plan to be serious about MP* Multiplayers.
You have to face the subverter balance issue soon

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Great post Fyron, thanks http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
I will need time to digest this, it is hard to fully understand.

Can you suggest a thread on leaky armor or even better add more here.

[ January 27, 2004, 21:26: Message edited by: Grand Lord Vito ]

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

What more would you like? Leaky armor is just a component without the Armor ability that has a high hit point per kiloton ratio, as well as preferably having more hit points per component than most other "internals" do. It works because the calculations that determine which component gets damaged by a shot are based on the hit points of components, and those with more hit points are more likely to be hit first, though not guaranteed.

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

It is the second paragraph in your original post that I dont fully understand.

Also if there is emissive armor as an ability then the armor is no longer leaky?

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

When a weapon hits a ship, it will first face the shield layer. If there are no shields, or no shield points, the damage goes to the components of the ship. If there are any components with Armor ability, they will be hit first. But, if the weapon was one with armor-skipping damage, such as Shard Cannons, then the damage will completely bypass the Armor layer and damage "internals," where internals are any components that do not have the Armor ability. Only the Armor ability makes a component act like "armor." If a ship has "leaky armor" components, they are not actually "armor" because they do not have the Armor ability. They are treated exactly like other internals. The reason that we use the term "leaky armor" is because having some beefed up components (lots of hit points) without the Armor ability makes them act similar to armor, except that some shots will not hit them but hit other internals instead. So instead of complete absorption by the Armor, you have partial absorption by the leaky armor. Armor-skipping damage has one role, to bypass the Armor layer, or in other words, those components with the Armor ability. However, testing has shown a few other side effects. The abilities of Shields From Damage and Emissive Armor do not get triggered by weapon shots with the armor-skipping damage type. Both of these abilities will function when any component gets hit, even if that component does not have that ability. This is why stock Armor and Emissive Armor work. Any shot from a regular weapon that hits any armor component will be emissed by so many damage points. The same occurs with Crystalline Armor, which has the shields from damage ability. If you assign either of these abilities to an internal component, then that ability will be triggered when any component on the ship is damaged, whether it is internal or armor is irrelevant. But, their effects do not get triggered from weapon damage of the armor-skipping type. So, if you mod in an internal component that has the Shields From Damage ability (such as leaky shields as in some mods), no shields will be added from the damage occured by an armor-skipping weapon (such as Shard Cannons).

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

Nice explanation.

Now break up that monster, you grammar-savage.

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

Well perhaps another armour type could be added to solve the problem ie a technology that gives a chemical coating to internal components that would be targetted by the problem providing them some additional protection from weapons or just selected components that could be coated for protection !

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Maybe I should make it one single sentence. With no caps. And no punctuation.

*Note that this was a joke directed at Loser for his suggestion that I am a grammar monster for having that post be one single paragraph. It was posted in a light-hearted manner, taking the grammar monster joke to the extreme, and was not in relation at all to anyone else, not about anyone else, or anything of that nature. Any such interpretation is reading information into the joke that simply does not exist. Loser and I have developed an "internet friendship," which breeds (limited) familiarity, and is what allowed him to feel fine making such a joke towards me in the first place, and allowed me to make this joke towards him. It was a joke. Not an insult, not harrassment, nothing of the sort. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Thank you.*

[ January 30, 2004, 15:59: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

I don't see much problem with armour and armour piercing weapons in AIC. Shard cannons are rather weak and costly to research. Time-shifters are even weaker and are wasteless against ships with internal armour - better use normal, hard hitting weapons !

As to racial armours, CA needs phased shields to work against PPB and many AIs use them. OA is usefull in small battles, but when AI send its Main Fleet, the targeted ships seldom live long enough to benefit from OA. The 1.84 "fix" that removed OA pre-generation really done OA in http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Maybe I should make it one single sentence. With no caps. And no punctuation. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">thank you fyron your views are explained fine
it was just some of the comments i did not understand </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">GLV please do not be disturbed by any possible comment or sarcasms http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif
Some players do not realize that the internet is multi-national. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif
Your origins are not my business, however your English Grammar is more then enough to convey your expressions http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

The Moderators may want to caution any player that makes fun of another’s grammar or spelling.
Especially, any person that attacks another’s perceived intelligence by the use of the known grammar that a person may convey.

Not all will master the English word and why should they, am I so naive to think English is the only language in this world.

If we are to remain strong as a community for its total diversity, we must embrace all that have not proven to have consistent destructive tendencies of intimidation or harassments. Otherwise, we will continue to lose so many that may want to be and have contributions.

[ January 29, 2004, 14:11: Message edited by: JLS ]

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

Imperator Fyron, I have reported your writings to the Shrapnel Sys-Ops.

Pointing out discrimination, harassment and intimidation should not be tolerated by any organization and individuals as prominent as Shrapnel Games, Malfador Machinations.


John Sullivan

[ January 29, 2004, 20:16: Message edited by: JLS ]

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

Let's all play nice guys.

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Geo, is it your contention as a Shrapnel representative. Players are to be discriminated against, and continually harassed and/or intimidated consistently by one individual and then when the victimized Players loses his/or her composer that you say:

("PLAY NICE")

I see...

- - -
JLS

[ January 29, 2004, 17:52: Message edited by: JLS ]

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Geo, is it your contention as a Shrapnel representative. Players are to be discriminated against, and continually harassed and/or intimidated consistently by one individual and then when the victimized Players loses his/or her composer that you say:


("PLAY NICE")

I see...

JLS </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">JLS, "play nice" was not directed at you, but at everyone in general. I have contacted Loser and Fyron privately. I inteneded it leave it at that but since you want to call me out about it...

I agree with you that their comments were a bit sarcastic. I have aked them to be more careful in the future. However, I do believe you are being a bit overly sensitive. And you are blowing things just a little bit out of proprtion here. This is confirmed by your reaction to me in your Last post.

So, calm down JLS. Don't be so ready to take offense at every comment made. You got to let some stuff slide. Getting all worked up about every little slight, intentional or unintentional, is not healthy.

Geoschmo

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Geo, is it your contention as a Shrapnel representative. Players are to be discriminated against, and continually harassed and/or intimidated consistently by one individual and then when the victimized Players loses his/or her composer that you say:


("PLAY NICE")

I see...

JLS </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">JLS, "play nice" was not directed at you, but at everyone in general. I have contacted Loser and Fyron privately. I inteneded it leave it at that but since you want to call me out about it...

I agree with you that their comments were a bit sarcastic. I have aked them to be more careful in the future. However, I do believe you are being a bit overly sensitive. And you are blowing things just a little bit out of proprtion here. This is confirmed by your reaction to me in your Last post.

So, calm down JLS. Don't be so ready to take offense at every comment made. You got to let some stuff slide. Getting all worked up about every little slight, intentional or unintentional, is not healthy.

Geoschmo </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">It is not I, that have been offended it has been a fellow Forum Member that again has fallen Victim of Fyrons intimidation, harassment or the discrimination or his implied statement of a fellow members grasp to intellectually understand.

There are hundreds of Posts with Fyron intimidations, harassments and discrimination recorded here on this Forum. Also recorded ,are scores of Shrapnel representatives requesting him to stop and yet he continues.

After receiving GLVs Email that he has had enough of Fyron and this Forum and will never return.
I feel that Fyron has gone to far by discriminating against GLV and publicly mocking this man integrity and origins. Although could be misunderstood by GLV as mocking of his ORIGINS, it still no less appalls me that Fyron has the knowledge he may continue on another and then another Forum Member.

I believe Imperator Fyron should be expelled from this Forum and that his handle be deleted and not be permitted to be used by any other,

[ January 29, 2004, 16:01: Message edited by: JLS ]

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

JLS, You should restrain yourself now. You are in danger of going over the edge yourself. Yes, Fyron can at times be beligerant and abrasive. But he has done nothing to warrant being kicked off the forum. By asking for such a drastic measure you are pointing out the fact that you have a personal bias against him.

I am not interested in continuing this discussion in public. I have emailed you and asked for some explanation of why you have taken such offense to his comments. You have thus far not bothered to acknowledge my email.

If you wish to continue this discussion do so by email. I will not permit this to become a "Bash Fyron" thread.

Geoschmo

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I am calm or is it the content of the message.

I have stated what GLV has Stated to me and I have posted.
I have asked for moderated assistence in this matter and that is enough for me. No more will be said.

Agreed, let us return to AIC topics.


Thank you Geo.


JLS

[ January 29, 2004, 16:10: Message edited by: JLS ]

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

I suggest to lower the cost of Starliner life support module from 1K to 500 organics. As it is now, Straliner capable to carry 2 people cost TWICE as staliner with basic life support that carries 1 people (I add all 3 resources together).

For most races organics are precious and used up eesily by colony ships and advanced buildings. I build "true" starliners only when play Organic race. In all other cases it is much more cost effective to use basic life support. It may look as a minor issue but it sort of kill the idea of starliners with specialized life support for millions of people and converts them into generic big transports http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Reduced cost will not unbalanced the game, you still won't be able to maintain more than 20 starliners for a long time (unless Organic of course, but that fits the race character anyway http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif )

[ January 29, 2004, 16:32: Message edited by: oleg ]

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

Excellent suggestion Oleg, thanks.

[ January 30, 2004, 12:58: Message edited by: JLS ]

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

Umm... when was GLV insulted? I'd hate for someone to be driven away from the community over a misunderstanding.

As I understand it:

1) Fyron makes a statement about how armor works.
2) GLV asks for a clarification.
3) Fyron gives a lengthy one (with no paragraph breaks)
4) Loser criticizes the lack of paragraphs
5) Fyron responds that it would be worse with caps or punctuation
6) GLV is offended http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Spoo the moderaters have asked for the Fyron subject to be closed.
We would like to continue AIC related Topics only on this thread.

Thanks, JLS.

EDIT:
Geo, you must have received my Email reply by now.

[ January 29, 2004, 20:09: Message edited by: JLS ]

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

Spoo, if you need to know, email me and I'll explain it to you as I understand it. But I'd rather not dredge it all back up now in the thread. The situation is resolved now and I'd like to keep it that way.

Geoschmo

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

Sorry, I suppose it's none of my business anyway.

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Maybe I should make it one single sentence. With no caps. And no punctuation. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">thank you fyron your views are explained fine
it was just some of the comments i did not understand

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">With the AIC 4.0 changes, perhaps the time has come to balance this allowing OS* (off) to be a little more competitive with OS* on.

- - -

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">QB,
PTF tends to agree with your Armor vs. Temporal and Crystalline post. What are your thoughts QB about adding more Armor Skipping Weapons for all the Races.

GLV, would this not water down your advantages when playing a Temporal or Crystalline race; What are your thoughts GLV?

- - -
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">GLV even though you play Temporal; if I am not mistaken you appreciated the AIC to-hit penalties on Armor shipping weapons as a means to slow their development= (advantage) but not cancel the advantages in the long run. In addition any Armor Skipping race will have to invest heavily in Combat Sensors and perhaps at some point a adversary may even Counter this with hi levels of ECM before attacking a Armor Skipping race.
GLV, could you elaborate more on this please.

- - -
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">QB, I know you had many thoughts about Organic Armor as well as Armor in general. Perhaps you may elaborate on this topic?
You also touched on the benefits of the 184 se4 gold patch, could you expand on this some more?

- - -
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">How do AIC players feel about this. Is there any friendly advice from AIC players on Leaky Armor to be introduce as a replacement or addition for PvKs armor style?

- - - - - -

Qbrigid I would like to thank you for all your contributions in AIC Psychic intel. Is there any ideas you may have to expand this addition to se4 AIC.


- - -

GLV, you have Emailed much on improvements for the AIC MP* Multiplayer options is there more positive opinions you could add here.

= = = = =

If no fresh new ideas, I will package were we are at.

[ January 30, 2004, 19:40: Message edited by: JLS ]

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">??? PvK' plain armor is exactly the Leaky Armor !
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

It is just how you call it http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

Could you expand on your previous Post a bit Oleg, Fyron indicates leaky armor is in part:

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Not intending to dishonorably pick Fyrons post apart. The first sentence eludes to Leaky Armor not having ARMOR ABILITY. Is that sentence misunderstood and is this what PvK proposed?

[ January 30, 2004, 14:52: Message edited by: JLS ]

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

If I may interject a possible goal for AIC to continue with.

PvK Proportions Armor Plates.

When this is penetrated by the enemies Fire then it attacks the internal components. The Component with the highest structure (value) may be attacked by this fire then.
In example Sensors, Engines, Ship Security, Self-Destruct etc. Prioritized by the design (structure values).

I ask the Players, would they also like to see the Armor (if I understand it correctly) that Fyron posted to be the AIC basic Armor Structure Component.


QB started a post; "that would restrict AIC Players to ONE (1) PvK armor Plate and ONE (1) PvK Ablative Armor", and I think some players may want to see Fyrons post implemented to enhance what QB posted. As Fyron defined and Paul pointed out; would be the AIC Structure Armor to beef up internal ships corridors etc.

I would like more feedback on this if possible.
Perhaps ONE (1) Armor Plate for Ships and Two(2) Armor Plates for Bases?

= = = =

Fyron, that was an outstanding and very helpful Armor post and I know you were thanked. In addition, I would also like to thank you.

[ January 30, 2004, 15:33: Message edited by: JLS ]

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Not intending to dishonorably pick Fyrons post apart. The first sentence eludes to Leaky Armor not having ARMOR ABILITY. Is that sentence misunderstood and is this what PvK proposed? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Fyron' explanation is exactly what Proportions/AIC "plain" armor is - no armor ability and a lot of hit points http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif _Ablative_ armor in this mod is a SEIV standard armor