Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Fyrons, definition of NO (Armor Ability) may make perfect sense for a Structure Armor to the basic Armor (non-Scaled or non-special) for AIC and with PvK Plate Armor as posted by QB, defined by Fyron and pointed out by Paul, should do the trick. Unless I am missunderstanding what the Players posted, are suggesting?



However, the Proportion (basic) Armor; DOES have Armor Abilitiy or have Emissive Ability.
AS such, may not be as Fyron defined or Players suggested.

= = = = = = =
Reference

Proportions
V2.5.3.1

Name := Armored Structure I
Description := Standard metallic armor used to protect a ship from physical damage.
Number of Abilities := 2
Ability 1 Type := Planet - Shield Generation
Ability 1 Descr :=
Ability 1 Val 1 := 0
Ability 1 Val 2 := 0
ility 2 Type := Emissive Armor
Ability 2 Descr := Deflects 1 damage per hit.
Ability 2 Val 1 := 1
Ability 2 Val 2 := 0
Weapon Type := None


Name := Ablative Armor I
Description := A thick covering of energy absorbant material designed to be completely destroyed before allowing attacks to penetrate.
Number of Abilities := 1
lity 1 Type := Armor
Ability 1 Descr := Is damaged before any other components on a ship.
Ability 1 Val 1 := 0
Ability 1 Val 2 := 0
Weapon Type := None

[ January 30, 2004, 21:43: Message edited by: JLS ]

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

=BUMP=

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I would like more feedback on this if possible.
-Perhaps ONE (1) Armor Plate for Ships and Two(2) Armor Plates for Bases?
-Do players think that the Increased Armor yield that a Base’s or Large Displacement Ship, satisfies; is enough as not to warrant an additional Armor Plate?
-Ablative Armor limitied to (1) However no space is used from within the ship http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
-How many ("Leaky" as defined by Fyron) AIC Structured Armor or should we have limits on this item?
-How about Limits that would allow a more generous share in OA versus other types that may restore what Oleg and QB have suggested was lost with the v184 se4 update?

[ January 30, 2004, 21:45: Message edited by: JLS ]

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

well, then structural armor is a leaky armor http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
Emissive armor ability does not make it true armor and very lower values dont make much difference anyway. I really don't think armor nee any changes. Well, may be add more few more levels for more fun and remove emissive armor ability from units' armor - it does not do anything.

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

I still don't get the point about limiting armor at all (I would remove the limits from my data files anyway). I mean, if the idea has been to weaken temporal/chrystalline ships because of their armor skipping weapons plus an unlimited armor defense, then I don't get why you want to limit the leaky armor now. Armor skipping weapons behave like normal weapons to leaky armor, because it has no armor ability and is handled like every other structure (like the internal structure in MOO2). So leaky armor is one of the best defenses against armor piercing weapons, if it is limited this would strengthen temporal/chrystalline too much. I do understand (but still I don't like) a limit to chrystalline armor and organic armor (if anyone uses two racial traits like an organic/temporal combo or somesuch), but a limit to the structural (non-armor ability) http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif

[ January 30, 2004, 23:09: Message edited by: PsychoTechFreak ]

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

I don't like the limit too, but for different reason - limit is set regardless of ship size. That means the dreadnaught is no stronger than a light cruiser. Completely idiotic, IMHO.

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

Agreed Oleg, and some may say that exterior HULL Armor requiring such a great portion of interior space may seem odd as well.

In regards to the Plate Armors; it is and always will be scaled to the ships displacement. An AIC Dreadnoughts Armor Plate, is and always will be considerably stronger then a Battleship and more to that of a Cruiser, etc. The only test changes to AIC Hull Plating; will be for it to require much less interior Ships/Base Space occupied by its Armor http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif With this change, many more interior Ship/Base options will be now to our avail with the freed interior Space this change will yeild http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

As for Structural Armor (as per Fyron definition of "SJ Leaky Armor") Many Players and I believe is more of a true interior structural support then the AIC Structure Armor used today and when revised; this Armor will not have or need for any load limits http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Organic and Crystalline Armors. Agreed, it will take many more Emails and Posts to convince us of the desire for load Limits.

Ablative Armor (externals absorbent material) may be a limited to one, this will not occupy any interior Ship/Base Space.

Advanced Composite armor has not been determined at this time for all its Abilities, Values or Limit. However, (after a sufficient Tech investment) its intent will be towards the mid to late game and to offset other Racial Armors for the non-Racial Players.

As it is now, a new/revised AIC Armor Inventory is a theory that will be tested.

- - - -

I will send you guys the Beta after it is all put together. Along with the changes discussed and others not yet fully discussed. Plus an AI that will be turned up a few more notches in the Total Mid and Late game:
Ship, CV, Unit, BaseShip, Intel and Research Productions.

[ February 01, 2004, 16:00: Message edited by: JLS ]

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

Hi all,

I have just started using the AIC 4.11 and I like what I see.

However, I am having a problem with starliners.
When I am in the design interface, it tells me the design will have 2 or 3 movement.

Once I build a strliner in game, they all have movement of zero. If I select the a starliner, none of the movement icons become available.

Could some one share a basic design with me so I can figure out what I am doing wrong?

I have tried straight engines and also the gravitic drives. For instance:

Large Starliner:
basic bridge
basic life support X 3
basic crew quarters
Population life support Module
Gravitic drive MK II X 1
Efficeint Quantum Engine III X 1

Projected movement = 2

In game movement = 0


Also, I've noticed that some of the Versions of some components jump around and/or the text doesn't match the Icon.


Lastly,

What, exactly, does the Debarkation Depot do?

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

Interesting. I thoght such design will give you same result in game and design window. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif

Add one more "normal" engine, so standard movememnt will be at least 1. Gravitic drive gives you "bonus" movement and apparently it works only if your ship has normal movement >0.

BTw, AIC is not suited well for all-tech start, it was designed for low-tech start.

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

Agreed, the use of (9) thru (15) “standard movement” was taken for granted and does not fully explain that this may be diminished by a ships hull configuration and or displacement.

Excellent point Claymore. We will look into rewording the Engines and with emphasis on Hull types to help refine this. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
- - -
Some Players enjoy starting the AIC game at a Medium Tech start, and some have played High Tech Starts about as much as they would in se4... However, as Oleg pointed out; AIC is initially being designed for emphasis with the default Tech Starts.
- - -
If Players find more items in need of a better explanation or to be repositioned please post or Email.
Actually, if you have a phrase that may enhance any descriptions please Post or Email http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif
= = = =
Without getting into the specifics of the non-se4 type population MASS of 1000=scaled, and the Positives or Negatives that it may entail with its global modifying data.

To move a 1000 MASS of population is represented by a Starliner and/or a high level cargo storage Transport hull from one planet to the next . This is seen as Very Tactical for some Players or just mundane to others.

The Debarkation depot (OS*) player option will allow (auto monthly Starliner pop Deleivery, if you will) and is intended to allow Colonized Planets to gain in Population on a per month basis without the need of Starliners for those who find Starliners mundane http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
- - -
Starliner Population Transports do not require extra se4 Life Support modules. The (SL Pop Life support module) will be more then sufficient not only for the population carried but for that ships crew as well http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ February 04, 2004, 14:33: Message edited by: JLS ]

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

Thanks for the feedback.

I will try a new design.

I would say that I would never have figured out that the starliner pop module makes the basic life support unnecessary.

I would also suggest that there needs to be some clarification on the points raised in the readme about how the pop module and the crew quarters can be used to move cargo.

What is the capacity, etc.

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

Regarding the Read.me. QB was interested in revising this for us, I will see where she is at and to clarify some key points for a concise and terse view http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif


I would and will work on more AIC details. However, with work, my Wife wanting to play her new Rise of Nations game with me and my son wanting to paint Napoleonic miniatures and set up future scenarios with (ALL THOSE RULES http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

I am finding less time to do what I need or even to just sit-back with a beer and watch TV http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ February 04, 2004, 15:47: Message edited by: JLS ]

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

Sorry, a few more questions and something for you to look at.

Why are starliners limited in movement? It seems like '2' is the best you can configure.

I tried removing the basic lifesupports, but I get the warning that this hull requires 3 life support units. If the Pop Module is supposed to fulfill this need, this needs to be changed.

Lastly,

If you look at the weapon plaform computer core. the IV takes 40 mineral and the V takes only 10 mineral. There are a number of incidents like this. I will start to keep a list to PM.

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">It is by design. The idea is to have slow and bulky transports for population - after all, you are shipping 1 million people with baggage, furniture, books, cars, etc. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Outstanding, thank you very much. We can use all the help we can muster http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ February 04, 2004, 16:13: Message edited by: JLS ]

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

Actually, I wonder why there is no difference between computer core I to IV ? Same size, same cost, same abilities http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif There MUST be something to have more advanced components !

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

Shortly after the time I released the Last AIC update, the C: Drive was lost along with my notes and some AIC, Adamant and other Players tasks we were working on.

I am unsure at this time why the Level 2 and up Computer core is changed, either way it will be restored and with at least three more components that need tweaks. The AI mine vehicles were adjusted then tested and not reset for that release, need to be resolved. I will reword any new phrases the Players submit in the next release. Structural Armors will not have Limits and we will find a compromise for the new Resource Base mining values.

More input is encouraged please continue to post, PM and Email; I will resume works after this weekend.

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

[ February 10, 2004, 13:37: Message edited by: JLS ]

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

When is the next update http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

Are you going to cut down on some of the moons and Astroids?
The AI is building to many planets http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

If you play on a non-FQM map, you will not have so many asteroids and moons. If you select a FQM map such as Mid-Life No Ast Belt, most systems will have only 2 asteroid fields in them. You can create other No Ast Belt type quadrants simply by using this quadrant (or the sparse or dense one) as a template. Most quadrants only differ in the following lines:

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;"> Name := Mid-Life No Ast Belt
Description := Standard middle age section of the galaxy .
Min Dist Between Systems := 1
System Placement := Random
Max Warp Points per Sys := 5
Min Angle Between WP := 60
</pre><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">JLS, why does this say 2.07/1.20 in QuadrantTypes.txt?
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Did you use stuff from both FQM Deluxe and FQM Standard? They are nearly the same, except that FQM Deluxe has changes that make maps uncompatible with the stock game (changes to PlanetSize.txt, SectType.txt, and Settings.txt changes, as well as the system images in SystemTypes.txt). Unless you want to remove the necessity to get all of the system images (nebulae, black holes, etc.), there is not much reason to use the FQM Standard files.

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

Fyron I do not fully recall why I stated (2.07/1.20 in QuadrantTypes.txt). Perhaps I used much of those FQM files as a base for FQMs port to AI Campaigns data files. In addition I believed I used some token data from v2.08 as well, this is good stuff and I/we are drooling for more http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif


Agreed Fyron, this is the way to go for those that do not want so many Planet options in the game.

QB when time permits, I will have a other Quad options available that will have less Asteroids and still maintain most of the FQMs flavor that we enjoy.

- - -

The next up date!

The next update will focus on the interface and the need to put loose ends together. AIC next major upgrade will be after the final se4 patch and all that this may entail.

[ February 19, 2004, 14:32: Message edited by: JLS ]

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Like what?

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

JLS the beta release for AIC 4.50 is great I played it all week end.
Some of the AI is a little agresive is this what you wanted? The plate armor for the out side hull is perfect and dosnt use very much internal space http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif MORE WEAPONS http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif . I like the Internal Structural Supports (leaky Armor) And with no armor load restrictions http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
The AI builds even more ships with even larger task forces (45+ ships in 3 Fleets with others ranging from 2 to 40 in the late game) Tere planet fighers may be a little to hard to crack should you tone this down?
They build more Colonies faster now it is getting very tough to keep at medium AI bonus http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
Are you going to implement the AI Spereworld SM ships still?
Keep up the good work.

Did you get my Email

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Thanks GLV, I will have more for you this coming weekend.

I will recheck the AI fighter totals; however, we still want the adversary to Commit all in the conquest of the HW.


Agreed, I have leaned into the Medium AI setting a tad, we should look into this. When at low or med AI Bonus we do want to keep the competitive results near v4.0

Yes in regards to Olegs and Geo's recomendation.
I scraped the AI Players Sphere world Construction ship. Primarily the AI Construction Ship will scour the universe to create the Huge World and not have any attentions to Colonize it, allowing another (Human) Player to reap from the builders efforts… Perhaps when I complete the Enterprise TV Series ™ AIC add-on to represent the Expanse Spheres http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ May 02, 2004, 23:30: Message edited by: JLS ]

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

4.11 to 4.50? Why such a big jump in Version numbers?

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

Maybe SE5 will lead to a Version 5 as the fist for the new game

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">For the inquisitive mind http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif


Basically when a minor change or add-on in beta or even my own (lets see the result test) is performed.
I will post a letter for example 4.11 to 4.11abc etc and then log that change, when/if that little packet is together I then roll the digits to for example 4.111 or 4.12

When there are major changes or conceptual additions and that usually did not involve any systemic changes (did not void existing games), the Version number then may be reclassified with just the rolling of an new digit for example 4.20 etc.

When changes led to a systemic proportion (any installs will void save games), then I will consider this a new generation hybrid and will run with or from for example 4.xx to 5.00 (when released).

In other words, when every little change is made then that change is logged. If it is decided that the change was invalid then the whole line bar is voided and the working AIC copy is rolled back to the desired past Version.
In just a few examples: AIC 4.11 Armor was revised to represent the Exterior Hull Plating more accurately and Structural Armor alone has been revised and then tweaked numerous times ETC. the Alpha and/or Numeric Version characters do move along with every change http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Thursday when I Emailed some players the AIC beta so we will see where we are at, that Version went from 4.48a to 4.50 as to mark the first released beta towards the next Public AIC release http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
- - - - -

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">For review, when se4 was released (and prior to gold) the new Version patch’s /upgrades where NOT consecutively released. 1.03, 1.11,"", etc.

Then se4 Gold was released. With its major changes and conceptual additions to the programming (Possibly not enough in mm’s opinion to designate se5)

Then came se4 gold’s upgrades or patch’s with Version designations also not released to the public consecutively. "","",1.78,1.84,1.91

Moreover, please review se4 history text file and the notations are for all changes by a number and I am sure the se4 programmers have a more complicated a system then what is documented. This may just be a method to track every specific change internally.

= = =

However, your suggestion does sound like a viable Marketing idea for Space Empire =V= http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ May 03, 2004, 14:48: Message edited by: JLS ]

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">- - - -
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">- - -

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ==
Reply by JLS

Oleg, this may be a compromise.
An additional StarLiner Hull with reduced costs triggered by a subtech for those that want a competitive balance in multiplayer versus the Players that choose OS* to the players that may not desire OS* options that will also be available in solitare play.
The next Version will have increased Reproduction benefits for the generic System Bio Hospitals with added compensatory numbers on Gestation Vats for the Organic Race Players Concerns. Also to mention that this new SL tech trigger as well as the Immigration Techs both will be cancelable from the new game Techs Allowed menu for multiplayer agreement concerns.

Would this satisfy most players? And what would be the desired resource costs for the optional Star liner?

[ May 05, 2004, 02:01: Message edited by: JLS ]

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Oleg if a planet needs condtion improvement, does this stop you from sending Star Liners anyway? I still do and with AIC OS* option on, so will the Auto Starliners. In any case the improvment plant is needed to increase the reproduction http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

OS* = Auto Starliners is provided by AIC for people that do not want the troubles of optomal expantion projects that deal with the micro movements of 40 to 60 Starliners http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

I also play like you without the AIC OS* option and micro manage our population. But it is http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif that others have the option not having to when they play AI Campaign.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">JLS origionaly had higher Gestation Vat values with earlier Versions of AIC and as I recall you thought this should be reduced then. I also agree we now should go back to the old 2.xx GV Values.

[ May 05, 2004, 18:43: Message edited by: QBrigid ]

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I like this, next time I play GLV and the guys I will have cheaper Starliners and when I go Solo I can play the game without the Cheaper Starliners so I keep the Econmics chalange.

As I posted earlier, I never like the reduction in Reproduction with the Bio Med Facility or the Gestation Vats.

[ May 05, 2004, 19:08: Message edited by: QBrigid ]

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yes I also agree with Oleg. But as a optional hull so the economics are not lost to the Players that like that stuff.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I think the armor skipping weapons are fine as they are. My concern is the fact that Temporals or Crystallites can stack the Armor to there benifit. When the needed help that se4 v1.84 upgrade can give in this area is ignored then this is a concearn to me.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Oleg GLV, what recomondations do you guys have for the strength ot the racial armor skipping weapons strength?


<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Sorry I am not sure what Oleg is saying??? Organic armor seems to be very strong post 184

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Nope. I like the derection and Posts that you and Fyron discussed about SJ's leaky armor for UNLIMITIED internal support armor and the new AIC Exterior Hull Plating that would be LIMITED to the amount of HULLS a ship has http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Thanks. No new ideas.

What are you going to do about total mine fields. PTF suggested 500/field. That would be to much are you going to keep them at 100?

What of the robo mining values. What some has suggested is (((way))) to high. You should keep them at the present values.

Do not foget the FQM Ancient Ruins thing Oleg mentioned. Are you going to reduce the Astroids in FQM?

The WP Computers. Do they really need so many levels?

[ May 05, 2004, 19:19: Message edited by: QBrigid ]

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Sad

I so looked forward to following Eees coattails and colonizing AI constructed Sphere worlds as I now enjoy the advantages of Eees warp openings and Astroid convertions http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Sorry I am not sure what Oleg is saying??? Organic armor seems to be very strong post 184
... </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Pre-1.84, Organic Armor generated "healing" points every turn, even before it was damaged at all. So in the usual situation, where there are a few turns before a ship gets hit, the ship would accumulate a large amount of "pre-healing". Oftentimes, a ship with much Organic Armor on it would repair all of its destroyed armor, perhaps multiple times, in a single turn, unless all of it was destroyed in a single turn. So, pre-1.84, it could be pretty durn effective (and in a way that didn't make a heck of a lot of sense).

In the unmodded game, my feeling is that Organic Armor is still a very nice component, because it is very cheap, uses organics (several advantages from that), and has reasonable protection and the regeneration. Since shield-skipping and depleting abilities are relatively common and powerful, and armor-skipping less so, Organic Armor definitely has its uses.

I haven't studied AIC armor, but Proportions mod armor (which I gather is similar) makes ordinary armor (Armored Structure) also quite strong, and not much impaired by armor-skipping, though also not hit-first. Organic and Crystalline armor remain the best hit-first armors (each in their own ways), but not necessarily the best non-shield protection. From a Proportions standpoint, I'd say Organic Armor maintains a useful and unique application, but a smaller one, and that there would certainly be room to add enhancements of various sorts, which might be a well-deserved balance boost. On the other hand, since economics are much more important in Proportions and AIC, the cheapness and organics use of Organic Armor are quite a bit more important than they are in the unmodded game.

PvK

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

Thanks PVK.

With the se4 1.84 Patch are the benifits of regeneration on Organic Armor removed from the stock se4 OA?

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">No. Stock OA still regerates, but it doesnt happen until after some armor is destroyed. This makes the regeneration fairly useless, as it takes several turns to get pieces to regenerate, and ships rarely survive that long once combat has begun... sure, you might get one piece to regenerate, but that is nothing... Of course, I believe that all OA is healed after combat now, so in the unlikely event that your ships are damaged but survive, the armor is all repaired. This is all speaking of stock SE4 values, of course... If the armor was 1/10 the size and all, the regeneration would be a lot more useful. Huge ships can sometimes have enough armor survive to get some regeneration, but smaller ships can't rely on it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Your original post is an interesting one with players adding to your subject as it applies to Armor stacking and the less then effective means to combat Armor Skipping races when you are for example a Psychic Player.

PTF (PsychoTechFreak) mentioned concerns that the access allowed for a moder to utilize total component load options availed in v1.84 may be used too liberally at the current AIC Version. That having limitation on the way AIC Armor is currently available to the Players is just not fun. (Many Players and I agree to many aspects of PsychoTechFreak post)

Furthermore QB, you are incorperating the PTF Posts into your observation that armor skipping weapons are effective against armor and this is true; however, adding Armor load restriction is not how to defuse your dilemma. You will find in-game avenues to counter Armor Skipping weapons and you may have to look outside the Psychic tech tree for your resolution.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">If one was to say that the (scaled, Plate Armor) designed by PvK and introduced in Proportions is ABSOLUTELY THE BEST armor in the se4 pre Adamant genertation, would you believe this to be true? You must consider this when you design your Ships and bases, because it is the best and (PvKs Plate Armor) is the TUFFEST to penetrate in se4.


<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">WP Computer advancement can be best answered by referring to Fyrons earlier post on that subject. “The best value is chosen when UNITS engage in combat”. Yes many levels are important as the game progresses.
- - -

Other then to make the FQM port feasible and then applying the FQM recent Version updates when time allows. I will not alter Fyron FQM MOD. Fyron does have the feel on the FQM Players pulse, also to mention Fyrons desire and ability to perform with the FQM Players wishes in mind.
This may sound rude. If a game that generates less Asteroids is desired, then choose a map option that has less Asteroids generated.

---

In regards to increased Robo-Minning efficiency numbers. AIC will continue to enjoy the modest Economic complement that Mining operations may yield; However, AIC will not become a mining operatives game, outside the benefits already enjoyed by FQM’s asteroid mining and planet conVersion contributions to se4.

- - -

With respect to total Mines placed in a minefield. AIC will follow Tampa Bay Gamers advice that will limit all Players to 50 mines per sector field. With this direction AIC will be able to reduce the AI Players anti-mine abilities. Based on SJ's advice, the over all reduced effectiveness of the v4.11 Minesweeper Component will be applied for a 50/fld balance.

[ May 06, 2004, 16:41: Message edited by: JLS ]

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">In the latest Versions of FQM, there are "Mid-life No AST" quadrants, which have only 2 asteroid "fields" in most systems. The quadrant is otherwise identical to the equivalent Mid-life quadrant. This provides an option to keep the other FQM aspects, while not having so many asteroids around. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif You can easily make No AST Versions of most quadrants, simply by copying the Mid-life ones and changing the first 6 or so lines to match Cluster, Grid, etc. type maps, as most quadrants are identical except for the WP placement fields and such (they have the exact same system entries). This does not apply to the more exotic quadrants though, such as Ancient, Newborn, Old, Paradise, and so on.

I did not do this in FQM because that would require a huge increase in the number of quadrant options to wade through... but it is rather simple to mod in, and the modded quadrants can be used in PBW games without worry, as long as everyone has a Version of FQM, as QuadrantTypes.txt is only read when the map is generated by the host.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I wish this were true, but unfortunately, only an extremely small minority of FQM players ever mention anything about their feelings on the mod to me, and only after I nag them too... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

[ May 06, 2004, 20:25: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

Fyron, to bring you up to speed on what has been suggested by QB and a small number of AIC/FQM players.

What has been requested by Email and a few Posts for AI Campaigns next FQM ported update:
Is to lower all Asteroids in (ALL FQM systems), to include reducing Asteroids sectors orbiting a Star System to only a half dozen: resulting in a reduction for Planetary Systems by over 50% of its Asteroids in total. This I will not do.
I have explained this to QB and others that AIC may reduce the occurrence of FQM pure Asteroid Systems that may be randomly generated in some AIC/FQM specific Quad maps. However, I am reluctant to remove any or all of FQM Asteroid characteristics from the FQM port. We have many Players that DO like a few FQM pure Asteroid perfuse System fields in their game and do want to maintain the integrity of FQMs intent http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ May 10, 2004, 15:41: Message edited by: JLS ]

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">QB, I believe Oleg's current recommendation is for a Facility with increased System reproduction rate for ALL players.

- - -
The reduction in Organic GV facility values Last year was in part, a compromise of the overall Organic Race benefit package.
For example: When a group of 10 Players sat down and played a very competitive se4 or AIC game and that 7 may choose the Organic race and that consistently the Organic Race may be chosen for its overall Abilities package then yes, we should look into the AICs racial benefit package.

= = =
However, as Oleg OA comment points out http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif ,,, Combined with PvK and Fyrons defined OA Posts. We all should agree, this will need to be reevaluated with Organic Race balance considerations to address any recent se4 OA regenerative changes.

[ May 10, 2004, 15:56: Message edited by: JLS ]

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Thus, the compromise of adding extra quadrants that use systems with few asteroids. Everybody is happy. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You will make the next FQM Version with maps that only have 3 or 4 Asteroides per system.

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

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif I don't want to leave the Psychic tech tree http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Sorry Oleg I misunderstood http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/blush.gif
Like you guys said, for all players just add a little more reproduction to the AIC system Bio Hospitals.

I would not give anything else to those Organic Bugs, they are (((way))) to tough allready.

[ May 14, 2004, 11:58: Message edited by: QBrigid ]

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

I don't see any major faults in weapon/armou balance right now but would still love to see the restriction on the components numbers removed. If some fool wants to build ship with 20+ armour pieces, let him see the error of his way http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Your right Oleg. After reading everybodys comments, I now understand http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/blush.gif

[ May 14, 2004, 12:47: Message edited by: QBrigid ]

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

AIC Players.

Have you ever assembled a Christmas present when the directions suggest that you do not tighten all the fasteners until the assembly is near complete; well this is the current feel that AIC Version 4.11 has - at this time.

I purpose that we add very little too the next Version and tighten as many fasteners as possible and just release the product se4 v1.91 ready - then add new tested ideas after this…

LAST CALL FOR WANTS and DESIRES:
PvK armor will remain as is, throughout AIC - with NO limits on Structural Armor or Racial Armor.
Mine fields at 60 and Sat fields at 50; ok here or is there any input?
Some discrete positive economic changes to include a wider margin towards the AIC Maintenance Characteristics.
Colonizer Tech cost lowered to 300000 from 400000, and Fast Colonizers reduced to 60000.

[ May 20, 2004, 23:49: Message edited by: JLS ]

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

50 looks to small for satelites IMHO. Severe to-hit penalties makes satelites usefull only as missile platforms. Any half-decent AI fleet can go through 50 sat. with vert small loses. But 100 was probably too much, I agree. May be 70 ? But I would rather get better to-hit values for satelites and limit of 50. That will make them more robust against fighters.

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Great ! (oleg call me a fool http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif ).

Something else: religious talisman + the best sensor provides somewhat above 100+ % to hit chance. Isn't it the same as an "always hit" talisman, or am I wrong?

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Great ! (oleg call me a fool http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif ).

Something else: religious talisman + the best sensor provides somewhat above 100+ % to hit chance. Isn't it the same as an "always hit" talisman, or am I wrong? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">It is not the same. SE calculates the difference between to hit plus and minus bonuses and use it for calculating the chance to hit target. Even if you have for example +200 to hit but target has -200 defence bonus, it will result in 50/50 chance to hit. If I'm not mistaken here.

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

I am categorically against lowing the colonizing cost !! This advance gives a huge boost to the empire development and MUST cost a fortune. I understand why people wants to low it though. In non-conected game you can get really unlucky but, hey, life is not fair ! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
Even then, computer complex II on the home world let you research 400000 tech in just 25 turns - nothing for non-conected start !

If you still decide to do this, please adjust AI research fules - move colonizer tech up the ladder so AI will research it earlier now, in line with human player priorities.

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You will make the next FQM Version with maps that only have 3 or 4 Asteroides per system.

Thanks Fyron http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">No, as the current Version has them with the 2 asteroids per system.

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Great ! (oleg call me a fool http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif ).

[/b]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">JLS, most of us liked the idea of Hull Armor limited just to the amount of hulls and having the internal Structure armor and race armors unlimited.

Anyway, great MOD and this point is trivial http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I agree with Oleg 50 SATS is too little. Why did you increase the mines up to 60 from the Tamper Bay Gamers suggested 50?

Maintenance Characteristics are fine.

Lower Colonizer tech cost since the AI no longer give the tech away. No biggie they will still trade but it is at a high price. 400k Cost is still good.

JLS, you forgot the increased System Hospital reproduction rate, are you still going to raise that and how about another 5% is that to much, Oleg what do you think?

Somebody mentioned Ancient Ruins not doing something, is just FQM or all the map types?

[ May 22, 2004, 16:40: Message edited by: QBrigid ]