|
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Each race has one special ship class. You would get this after you researched the correct tech areas. You can only have one of these ships in your empire. It has special bonuses and gives ships in the fleet it is in bonuses, etc.
This would give a sort of RPG feel and you would of course need to protect it because you can only have one. |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Dont think that i quite clarified my self - when i said make stats etc specific to game impact i was referring to new data types that are being suggested - of course leave the text stats etc to describe planets etc. Growth rate etc are preexisting - i meant AU - radiation exposure etc. New types not previously used.
|
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Quote:
|
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
quick note on ship classes and ships in general:
I personally feel that a good chunk of the ship building process should be overhauled some. I do like the idea of being able to add in different componants etc., but I think that it would be a tad more interesting to have the size of a ship/class (ie 150ton escort) *not* based on tech level. Ships should be built to whatever size you want and classed how you want (If I happen to want to have a 10 million ton behemouth scout, then dag-nabbit, I *want* one!) Now here is where the technology would come in: Engines/propulsion systems should take up a percentage of the ship's mass based on size of the vessle and tech level attained. The higher technology, the smaller the percentage. So, for example, at low techs, engines and fuel storage could take up to 50-75% of the ship's mass (for the sake of argument),probably less, which in effect doesn't leave much room for onboard ship systems, including crew. This leaves players a couple of choice - research better, more compact engines/feul storage or work on miniturizing ship systems and possibly leaving crew out (assuming we're using crew...). I'd also like to see something along the lines of a power plant included in the ship componants. This would take up about 5-10% of the ship's mass, reducing with higher techs. This would be the primary power source of the vessel. Right now I guess it's assumed that it is the engines... But if that is lost, the ship is derilect until it can be repaired. Also runs a chance of overloading during combat. Greater chance at lower techs, to a final 1% chance at higher techs. ~Cheers, |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Quote:
You have to do the research to figure out HOW, then you can. If you want to start out running around with battlemoons, that's what a high tech start is for. --- There are many QNP mods out for SE4, which do as you suggest. I usually design my P&N warships in the 25%-35% range, though, and load up on shields and armor. That's just me, though... my brother goes all out on weapons, and my Dad likes to go up into the 50% engines range. [ August 01, 2004, 16:17: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ] |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
if i understand your idea of percent of ship taken by each thing right then i would say no i like the current system of componets but i have one minor thing to the componets, they should be inter changeable so if you capture a ship you should be able to take something on that one and put it into another ship
|
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Quote:
You have to do the research to figure out HOW, then you can. If you want to start out running around with battlemoons, that's what a high tech start is for.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Tower vs. Ship. Tower is planet based. You are fighting gravity and wind sheer. Ship is orbital. 10 million tons, incidently, isn't even as large as a current day air craft carrier. My point is that yes, you *can* (or at least *should*) be able to if you want to spend the amount of time and money and resources and manpower it takes to put something like that together, but it won't be terribly effective. I *do* concede a partial point to you on the engineering note. Perhaps this could be overcome by the larger the ship and the lower the technology the more problems it inherently has. On the other hand, lower techs usually use larger things. They don't have the finess of higher technology. I keep thinking of the basement sized computers that couldn't do a smidgeon of what my wife's laptop can do that my father-in-law worked on when he was starting out in the aerospace industry. Cheers, |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Quote:
You have to do the research to figure out HOW, then you can. If you want to start out running around with battlemoons, that's what a high tech start is for.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Except this is space. There are few major forces on the structure, with the most notable being the thrust from the engines This means that the ship construction technology could be used to determine maximum thrust levels and hence, under the QNP system, speed . Also, higher levels of ship construction could create ships that can take greater damage since they have a tougher structure. |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Quote:
However, the way the game is currently set, is the same 10 ton engine can propell the smallest to the largest ships. It just doesn't make sense to me. Cheers, |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Well yes you are somewhat right on the low tech engines but the more advanced engines it could be explained that it is so advanced that it doesnt need to be big----My idea is a sort of half way between idea--- For smaller ships early on you would need less engine componets to make it go faster and the bigger it is the more engines it needs but as you get more advanced you need the same amount of engines for both due to advanced tech in engines---
|
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
10 million tons is a hell of a lot bigger than a current aircraft carrier. Those generally get into the 90 KILO ton range at max- several orders of magnitude smaller. (even the SE4 escort is bigger)
Just because you can slap together that much material doesn't mean you could make it move, either. Place the engines wrong and it would rip itself apart.. |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
This was in a mod but I thought it was a good idea and should be in SEV, You should be able to make weapons take up less space but still hold attack values, but this would increase the cost of building ships
|
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Quote:
You have to do the research to figure out HOW, then you can. If you want to start out running around with battlemoons, that's what a high tech start is for.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Tower vs. Ship. Tower is planet based. You are fighting gravity and wind sheer. Ship is orbital. 10 million tons, incidently, isn't even as large as a current day air craft carrier. My point is that yes, you *can* (or at least *should*) be able to if you want to spend the amount of time and money and resources and manpower it takes to put something like that together, but it won't be terribly effective. I *do* concede a partial point to you on the engineering note. Perhaps this could be overcome by the larger the ship and the lower the technology the more problems it inherently has. On the other hand, lower techs usually use larger things. They don't have the finess of higher technology. I keep thinking of the basement sized computers that couldn't do a smidgeon of what my wife's laptop can do that my father-in-law worked on when he was starting out in the aerospace industry. Cheers, </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The Nimitz class carriers run up to around 100,000 (thousand, not million) tons when fully loaded. The largest things afloat are the 'super tankers' that run between off-shore terminals and can't even come into port. They get to about 1.5 million tons Last I heard. But building a large structure in space still requires engineering for stresses and pressures. Especially if it is going to be a moving structure. The engines have to 'push' on something or other to make the thing move, and it has to hold together when they do. Not to mention resisting damage from enemy weapons. That said, I agree that a more flexible style of 'engineering' is needed for SE ship design. The current fixed 'tonnage' for every ship regardless of what is really installed just doesn't make sense. We need to see real costs/benefits from altering the engine power/mass ratio of our ships. The idea of ship classes as rigid 'containers' needs to be dumped. I still think a series of hull size classes should dictate the relative building costs (scaled by your construction/materials technology level) according to how big the final design really is. BUT... we should not go 'choosing the size' before we do anything else and then be forced to 'choose the size' again if we want to add more equipment than will fit into the rigid size we chose before. We should be able to just add equipment to the design and let the game track how big it's getting. As it crosses 'levels' of construction size, the cost gets re-calculated to reflect our ability to handle the scale. And if it looks too costly you scale back to a smaller size -- by removing equipment, not by 'choosing the hull size' again. [ August 01, 2004, 18:44: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ] |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
If you are basing things on Size, and there is no size requirement or max, then there would have to be a cost for the basic frame of the ship. This is already in SE4, but we are limited by the size class. But to prevent people from just making these big mammoth scouts, is to make it much more expensive to by the frame, plus not to mention the engines need to move something that size. Alot cheaper to have a 100 ton scout than a 1M ton scout. And maintance...whoa we wont even go into that...
Kana |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
why not do what they did in some mods make three or so sizes for each ship size--- So Light Escort, Escort, Heavy Escort, they somewhat did this with crusiers in SEIV light, normal, Battle
or this, Have Size Range for each ship so you could have anywhere between 100-200 Kilotons for an escort and you would define in game what you wanted it to be and you would name the size you created So you could build a 123kt escort ------------------------------------------------ Should split up the Intel Projects into two sections, Offensive and defensive. You should have to do specfic counter intel projects, so maybe intel recon to discover what the enemy are doing then have to launch a counter intel against that project, so if the enemy was setting up a puppet goverment you would have to assainate there puppet leader and maybe garrison the planet with troops and ship [ August 01, 2004, 21:20: Message edited by: Colonel ] |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Quote:
actual size of the USS Nimitz, by way of reference, is approximately 97000 tons, as per your post. But still. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Quote:
I dig your ideas. I think something like that would work very well and be a lot of fun to noodle as well. Cheers, |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
One thing that really makes colonization difficult is the change of the "planet status" from colonized to available if you move your ship out of a system. I would like the planet status to remain the same as the Last time I "saw" the system. However, this would probably take significant programming or large player files.
Another option would be to show that the "unseen" planet is colonized but without the designation of who owns it to avoid giving away information on conquests. That way I could plan my colonization without sending ships to planets that are already claimed. |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Someone suggested something like this before but i wish to refine the idea, Limiting larger ships, You should be able to pick a design type of Capital Ship and you would only be allowed 3 of this design, and you would need a certian population in order to get this size ship, but this ship shouldnt have any limits like only 2 engines for it or something like that, and if you lost one you couldnt rebuild it, it would lost---This would give greater importance to Fleets and protecting Larger ships because they are more of an investment
|
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
- I would like to see weapons with splash (area) damage.
- The possibility to give and equation to determine weapon damage (that way you can include various parameters into the damage (ship size, distance from target, etc.)). - The possibility to let a weapon fire more than one "beam". That way you can damage a whole lot of ships at once. - In conjunction to the first and third wish; weapons that can affect more than one ship (like creating a gravity hole in the center of an enemy fleet). - More room for pics (and larger pics). - And of course the possibility of adding animations into the space for the pics, maybe in gif-format. [ August 03, 2004, 09:49: Message edited by: Timstone ] |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
http://www.tescosamoa.com/racetosev/viewtopic.php?t=12
the heavy hitter himself is wishing some good luck... |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Hey, I was thinking about this Non-Warp Hole movement idea. It would be excellent to have STL travel for ships, and I don't see any real reason why it can't be implemented as long as you make one assumption:notably that you can only issue orders to ships or communicate with them when they are at a location with warp points.
If you make that assumption, then the rest of the pieces are already there in SE4 pretty much. The main obstacle is a line-of-sight distance determinination for traveling between stars - and it is already resident in SE4 used for opening WPs to a distant star. The other stuff that you would need - how far apart stars are, the assumption that stars are on a 2D space, and so forth are present too. All you would need to add to SE5 to allow such star-to-star non-WP travel is a separate ship screen, or a highlighting for ships in the current screen, that displays ships in "deep space" or as "enroute between stars" or "out of communication" and they would simply be that way until they arrived at their destination - then you could give them new orders. You might have to also assume that ships in "deep space" don't need or get maintenance - but they're on autopilot, with their crews in deep sleep anyways, so that's not a stretch to me. Now, when sending your ships into deep space you'd want to give them LOTS of supplies so they can make it there, but that's part of the game. We can also calculate how long it would take to get from one star to the distant star by using the current movement system - we know that a standard SE4 Ion drive powered ship can cross a typical solar system in two months, and we can carry that out to calculate how long it would take such a ship to travel 10, 50 or 100 LY, right? It might take years in game time, but, it would still be a very cool addition to the game. RE: Quote:
|
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
The speed you calculate for crossing a solar system (system map) is the average though. Ships have to accelerate and then slow down when they get close to their destination even if their destination is other ships. Combat is assumed to occur at similar speeds. Assuming that the SE system map is about the size of our own solar system (the orbit of Pluto) and a 'turn' is similar to our month in length gives an average speed of a few percent of the speed of light. Not bad, really. ONE percent of the speed of light is 1860 miles per second -- many, many times faster than anything humans have ever launched to date. So, what if these ships just kept on accelerating for a long time instead of slowing down again? It seems reasonable to assume that they could get close to the speed of light. Certainly much closer than anything we are currently able to build. So you could conceivably have travel between nearby stars in a few years of game time. Not too unmanageable.
[ August 03, 2004, 20:39: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ] |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
few years of game time?!?!?!?! why not just have it so you can see the uninhabited systems in between and control them there tooooooooo
[ August 04, 2004, 02:30: Message edited by: Colonel ] |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Quote:
basically, you dont have to choose your hull size, but the cost of building larger things might exponentially increase as size goes up. increased levels of ship construction would afford you a more generous formula for cost / mass ratio. furthermore, speed of a ship is calculated dynamically by thrust vs mass. engine technology provides greater thrust, and ships can be ANY mass. |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Well, ideally such ideas could be implemented as "settings" - SOME people like the long games - and you could even have settings that would allows you to turn off warp points, and only use STL travel, or the reverse (which is standard now) or both. The key here is that STL travel is largely implementable and certainly can complement the current system.
Quote:
|
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Quote:
|
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Does anybody have any clue when SEV is supposed to be released?
|
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Supposedly next summer...
|
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
You should all note that any links to thread within SEIV forum are most likely bad now.
|
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Can someone who knows explain this bit from Malfadors SE5 news?
"Now you can use formulas for all of those pesky ability amounts" |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
I don't know if this has been suggested before but i'd like to see a component having a % chance of being destroyed on use. cheap components could have a higher % while premium components have a lower % of being destroyed. Thus certain high energy weapons could explode in combat. also not all hyperdrive/warp components would burnout everytime their used.
ggm |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Quote:
Weapon Type := Direct Fire Weapon Target Type List := Ship, Base, Planet, Fighter, Satellite, Drone Weapon Damage Type := Normal Weapon At Range Distance Increment := 10.0 Weapon Min Damage At Range := 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 Weapon Max Damage At Range := 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 Weapon To Hit Modifier At Range := -10.0 -20.0 -30.0 -40.0 -50.0 Weapon Min Damage Modifier Formula := [%ListedAmount%] + (([%Level%]-1) * 0.5) Weapon Max Damage Modifier Formula := [%ListedAmount%] + (([%Level%]-1) * 0.5) |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Woops, I forgot to ask for a moddable facility input. I mean that the modder can change the buildings that the computer puts on all planets at the start of the game.
Also, don't loose track of the legacy of SE. Keep it simple on the outside, but complex on the inside. It must be playable for noobs and entertaining for veterans. Ed Kolis: I don't like your idea of more resources. SE always had three resources, let it stay that way. Don't make things too complex (KISS). Techfreak: Woa, great idea about the headstart for the AI. I like it! David E.: I'm curious. I really don't know it, so I'll just ask you. Do you know Aaron, or are you part of Malfador? Damn, this question really makes me feel a noob. Like I never come at this oasis on the net. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/redface.gif Edit: Okay, this IS STUPID!! I just found out that this post was partly a reply to one of the first Messages posted in this thread. Damn that reverse posting!!! I hate ti... Grr.... [img]/threads/images/Graemlins/mad.gif[/img] |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
I'd like to make components that require some sort of cargo on the ship in order to work, and then they can consume that cargo when they do their thing. After this, make specific cargos that act as supplies, or at least make this kind of compplication something we can mod in.
Oh, and Hotkeys. I want hotkeys for everything. |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Quote:
|
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
I think we should allow the neutrals to colinize the sectors directly connecting to there home sector, and allow there non clonizeing ships to go to all the sectors
This would give them more of a punch without being an Empire of there own right Next this is a map editor request, if we have one could there be a way to put which neutrals where we want on the map, that would make editing maps easyer |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Quote:
Thanks Fyron. |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
I am reading "The Shiva Option" by David Weber and Steve White. It reminds me a lot of SE4 with systems connected with Warp Ponts, large fleets of ships and LOTS of space battles. I suggest anyone who likes SE4 will like this book.
One thing it has is Hidden Warp points. These points can only be found by careful scanning or Luck. One side can be taken by suprize by the enemy popping up from no were. Could this be added into SE5? You could have a special scanning teck with different levels to see different levels of hidden warp points. This might allow one to move ships to by-pass an enemies defences. |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Thanks for that Last post - though it has been covered before in this thread lol - keep it coming i think we came up with randomly moving warp points (only stay put in 1 turn before turning up somewhere else)
The various levels of tech and of course the smaller points limiting ships below a certain size and scaling up on that point to. |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
This next one has to do with Commerece,
First we need some sort of standard monitary figure(Ex. Dollars, euros so on) that can be used to buy ships quickly or resourse from other empires, and anything else. Money\Commerece would be created by many things, Taxes from each of your Planets, You would be able to raise or lower the percent but higher levels would cause unhappiness. To represent Industry Tax you would get money from different types of buildings and there amount of use, So a mining colony on a planet that has a high mining value would devolpe more money then a mining colony on a planet with less mining value. Next You could devolpe Commerece\money from tourism to different planets within your empire so if you had a planet devouted to Happniness building then you might get a large amount of money from that planet from commerece but there would be one thing that would apply to this, Location if you have a planet devouted to tourism and it is out away from all inhabited planets you would get little or no tourism money but a planet that is near your capital planet which would be well traveled would get a huge tourism commerce bonus Anyone have any thoughts on this idea? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
In my opinion, SE5 should stay far away from "dollars" or "credits" and stick to resources. There is not much need to add another level of complication when everything can be accomplished using resources. Emergency Build sort of covers this, by pumping more resources into the build queue per turn. Similar methods can simulate buying ships quickly and such remarkably well.
|
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
And how about the SE3 ship building style?
there, first you purchase a ship, and the next turn it appears with all of its components "destroyed" beeing built in your "repair priorities" order. i miss that in SE4, where a ship that has been in a space yard for 5 of 6 years cannot moove or defend the planet even beeing half-operative. Remember the death star http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
what about Dis-Information Counter Intel projects. If you intercept an enemy Intel project, and you have the Dis-Info Counter Intel rather than standard Counter Intel, it gives you the option to "fill in the blanks" on the enemy project and send them back your false info. Unless they have sufficant Counter Intel (or perhaps automatic), they assume that their project was successful but end up with the wrong info.
|
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Quote:
Kana |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Quote:
Edit: I agree with having ships built gradually. A ship being built is little different from one being repaired. It is realistic in having half completed hulls in dock, and would be interesting to have half completed ships used as a Last resort if the space yard is attacked. Although perhaps until a vessel is commisioned it will be unable to act. |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Money is an essential feature of civilization. As the 'trade' system in SE IV currently works you have to scrounge around for things that your trading partner might want. And if you can't find something in your possession that the party with the goods you want is interested in, you're stuck. It's like being a primitive tribal trader with nothing but raw goods to offer.
The 'technology' called money was invented many thousands of years ago to solve this problem, and there's no good reason to assume that advanced space-faring races, even very alien races, couldn't think of the same solution to the trade problem that our relatively crude and unsophisticated ancestors did. There really does need to be some sort of money in the SE universe. It doesn't require fancy accounting or banking systems. We can 'aasume' that just like we assume the trade routes and freighters moving our resources. But yes, money is essential for dealing between nations and empires just as it is between individuals. Even today the US Government pays money to other governments for various purposes, and also receives money from other governments. On ship construction, I certainly agree that the SE III system where 'blank' ships appeared when purchased and were slowly 'repaired' to operational status was better than the SE IV 'instant ship' system. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif I hope something like the SE III construction method is restored in SE V. |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
This is going along with the commerece idea, We need more to trade with there is really only ships, planets, and resourse to trade.
Next this idea has been brought up before but this is one minor change. You should be able to steal components of ships in battle and retrofit it on to that ship |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Quote:
Edit: The actual purpose of money, at least originally, was that you could give the guy in town 3 gold pieces instead of having to carry 3 cows, 2 sheep and a pig to market to pay for the clothes he is selling. A few coins is more convenient to carry, but we don't need to carry stuff we can just gift each other 300,000 resources. end edit: Meanwhile with all this talk of being dictator of your state, why not introduce the ability to modify empire settings as needed. This is one of the few good things from MOO3 (at least to me). Are your subjects dissenting?, send in the troops. Is your neighbour sending lots of spies at you, then use agents to root them all out. Also with all those AI populations you conquered, why not institute forced labour. With the benefits could of course come drawbacks like perhaps empire unhappiness at being spied on by their government all the time, unless they are the sort of people to understand the necessity of all this. |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
A PBW related wish, maybe it was mentioned before, forgive me for not reading trough 85 pages of Posts http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif
Make a command line option to work with smaller, patch like savegames. See, i would bet, that most of the savegame file remains unchanged when you make a new turn. This means, you wouldnt have to send all the data to the players, as they already have at least half of it. I've tried to do some optimisations in the netcode of my mutiplayer tool based on the above assumption, but because of the encoding, there is nothing common between two save files. While i can't (or at least wouldn't like to) circumwent that encoding, malfador could easily create said functions for us. How it would work: - command line turn generation would create a gam file and a gam.patch file, which only includes the binary differences between the unencoded turn files of the previous turn and the new turn. - this patch file would be encoded as well on the client machine, the game can take the patch file as an argument instead of the gam file, in which case it uses the data from the previous save game to build the actual gam file for the current turn. It sounds easy, and i think its not that much of an overhead, but i think this may reduce required network traffic for multiplayer games by a lot. I think the way rsync compares files could be easily adopted to se4 as well (i was about to use its algorythm for my tool, until i realized it will not work on the generated savegame files, because of the above mentioned encryption). for those not familiar with rsync, check out http://samba.anu.edu.au/rsync/ and http://samba.anu.edu.au/rsync/tech_report/ |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:18 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.