Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Fyron, why is it a problem? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

The game allows the retrofitting an existing ship in mothball status.

It also allows the construction of a new ship in mothball status.

Both are unrealistic, although the latter much more so (which may be your issue). http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

But the game does allows both although both are not factually based in real life.

If we do not like it, it is the coding which should be changed.

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not so much sealing off as putting it in a port with a skeleton crew so as to avoid paying for a full crew, provisions, ammunition and fuel. I believe the Last Turkish battleship had a crew of 2 for several years (an old captain and his dog!) before the government decided to scrap it. Generally ships in mothball are cheap to maintain but deteriorate rapidly. Perhaps SE4's unmothball cost should be higher to represent the huge amount of work required to turn a decaying hulk into a battleworthy ship once more.

I can't see how this would prevent modifications to the vessel being made, though. There's no crew/ammo/fuel on board. Old parts that are rusting away can be replaced etc. Generally though, in real life mothballed ships are put in mothballs prior to being scrapped (the only exception I can think of is the American battleships mothballed then put back into action for the Gulf War), so it's hard to judge how this should be handled.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">

Indeed, and the Prince of Wales was only recently built (when she left port to intercept the Bismarck she still had civilian contractors on board trying to get the main armament fully operational. During the Denmark Strait battle she was rarely able to fire more than 7 of her 10 main guns due to mechanical failures. Despite this she did manage to hit the Bismarck, rupturing a fuel tank and causing her to run for St. Nazaire. Several British ships were rushed into combat too quickly - I believe the record was a destroyer crippled/sunk just a week after being completed.

An interesting point is that the Tirpitz (sister ship of the Bismarck) was also recently built and was still working up when Bismarck sailed - hence she wasn't allowed to join the sortie (thank goodness - one battleship proved hard enough to stop).

The thing is that there are two issues that are lumped together in SE4:

1) Crew experience/training. This can be got round in real life by assigning crew from other ships to your new ship, or indeed, by training crew whilst their ship is being built. This is especially true if you have several ships of the same design on which to gain experience.

2) Vessel shakedown. No ship comes off the stocks fully operational, especially if the design is a new one. Generally weeks/months of sailing are required to shake out all the little niggling problems and make the ship fully battleworthy.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'd like the training to be more important, perhaps by raising the amount of experience you can get, raising the amount you can get from training etc. This would mean ships raced into combat would be at a great disadvantage against those carefully brought up to full battle readiness. It would probably really hurt the AI, though.

Anyway, I've rambled on for enough.

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Fyron, why is it a problem? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

The game allows the retrofitting an existing ship in mothball status.

It also allows the construction of a new ship in mothball status.

Both are unrealistic, although the latter much more so (which may be your issue). http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

But the game does allows both although both are not factually based in real life.

If we do not like it, it is the coding which should be changed.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That is where the issue becomes gamey, really. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I have already stated why I consider it a problem several times. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ January 13, 2003, 01:40: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

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

A part of your posting...
----------------------------------------------
I believe the Last Turkish battleship had a crew of 2 for several years (an old captain and his dog!) before the government decided to scrap it.
----------------------------------------------

What rank did the dog have? And did it have a salary? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Umm... training is of extreme importance as it is. Untrained ships get 40% penalties against trained ships. That is a huge gap to overcome. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

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

Another part of your posting.....
-----------------------------------
Generally though, in real life mothballed ships are put in mothballs prior to being scrapped (the only exception I can think of is the American battleships mothballed then put back into action for the Gulf War), so it's hard to judge how this should be handled.
-----------------------------------
The Americans mothballed a number of WWII battleships. Some were used for the VietNam War and as you say in the Gulf war. They would be 50 years old at the time of the Gulf War.

I may be wrong about this, but if the ships were not sealed, I would think they would be too rusted to be unmothballed for the Gulf War.

Could it be that the situation you are describing is of ships being put into reserve and then when they have deteriorated, they are scrapped?

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

I guess I've learned a bit about "bending" the rules a bit in this thread. I guess all I knew about was the ability to put more than 100 mines in a sector...learned accidently, of course. Also, I guess that limit can be edited in a file since I've seen the setting.

But now I see the "triple training trick" (planet and 2 moons), the "EB planet trading trick", and something called the TDM weapon cheat.

So, just what is the TDM weapon cheat?

And finally, how likely is one to get a game filled if one spends 100 words on "tactics" not allowed?

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

right now tdm's do too much damage.

There costly little weapons that used to just do 4x damage to shields and 1x damage to everything else.

right now they do 4x damage to everything.

ALso in reply to this quote eariler
If we do not like it, it is the coding which should be changed.

Never suggest that. Hard Coded changes cannot be modded.

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

I have read this thread from stem to stern and I have yet to hear of anything as Gamey. Therefore I am doubling the prize to 20 Galatic Credits. And as for 'mothballing' ships. In space things don't rust. And IN my opinion the build and mothball situation works just fine. The game has a sloution to that problem just limit the amount of ships to around 500.
And it's looking like 'Gamey' is in direct proportion to games played.
And I must point out with the way this game can be modified and the setup choices you have you can make a level playing field for any group of players. ( you may have to play a few games but a fair start can be achieved.) And I strongly suspect that some players are unwilling to do the hard work involved to achieve complete dominance in a game.
(I finshed a game recently in which a player built 3 or more ringworlds just to stay competetive)
BTW I liked the more than 100 accidental mines per sector it really put a risk element into the game. In 1.78 you just have to plan for about 200 mines max. (I miss the old minelaying/minesweeps Baseships)

Maybe we should start a nasty trick thread.

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

Gamey?
Ok, nobody thought "acidentaly on purpose" sending mis information to my advesary or his partner was Gamey.
How about asking his Partner with whom I had a trade agreement with for,
Tech I alwready had in exchange for tech I did not have.
This was via emial not the in game trade system.
It was my hope that this information would get back to his Partner, (my advesary). In theory my advesary would then design his ships on what he eroniously thought I had.
Was this espionage, a waste of email or a Gamey tactic?

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">But, didn't I read that someone mentioned a TDM cheat? I wouldn't call it a cheat if it's cleary a weapon the game offers. Or am I misunderstanding something?

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">But, didn't I read that someone mentioned a TDM cheat? I wouldn't call it a cheat if it's cleary a weapon the game offers. Or am I misunderstanding something?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That's a bug that was introduced in the Last patch. It will be fixed in the next patch. If you play a temporal race on PBW, you're often asked not to use that weapon until the patch is in effect.

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

Tks, Arkon.

I hardly ever play other race types so about all I know of them is what I run into... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Of course you could do so. It's not as though opening a ship to space is going to let any moisture or oxygen in to cause deterioration.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Which is what happens, because mothballing removes crew experience.

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Espionage of course. There is no reason why a player must be honest in their political dealings.

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">a waste of email

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

You guys, it is the TDB, for Time Distortion Burst. TDM = Tampa Gamer, Daynarr and Mephisto Mod. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

I can't take this any more. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif

TDM is the TampaGamer-Daynarr-Mephisto-ModPack, and has nothing to do with this thread.

TDB is a bug in the Time Distortion Burst temporal weapon, which will be fixed in the next patch.

Deliberately misusing terms to confuse an argument is gamey. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[Edit] And IF types much faster than I do.

[ January 13, 2003, 20:05: Message edited by: capnq ]

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

Rollo,Graeme Dice , Thanks for the input, I may be unorthodoxed but I'm not deliberately a "gamey" person.
Note to self: Find betterway to bluff.

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

Actually, I loved the TDM/TDB thing. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

Whoa. Did the Shrapnel Games site fall over yesterday or something? I couldn't get on the forum. Two days of thinking coalesced into one post - sorry if it's a bit of a large one.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No - that's sneaky, devious and a bit of a long shot! Nice idea.

In my view 'gamey' is playing the game to maximum efficiency rather than maximum reality, without exploiting a bug (ooh, where to draw the line?). In Counter-Strike (duh, why am I bringing this up?) running around jumping up and down like a fool is 'gamey' - it's unrealistic but it makes you harder to hit. Plus it annoys people (me included) like crazy. The simple fact is that people learn how to play the game rather than how to do the thing the game simulates (could I fly a plane after several hours of playing some years-old flight sim?).

If you were a real leader of a race that's just discovered how to colonise other worlds, would you really order your scientists to research 'physics' up to 'level 2' in order to be able to research 'phased polaron beams' (imagine I've crooked my little finger to my mouth a la Dr Evil from Austin Powers)???

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, they would surely have to have received occasional maintenance to keep them from decaying beyond use. Not necessarily 'sealed off' though - the outer hull would eventually rust if not cared for (replacing the zinc blocks every now and again???).

A fairly simple example: One of my housemates has gone on a long holiday to Australia. One of my other housemates has his car keys and occasionally runs the engine for a few minutes to keep it in order (and to prevent the pipes from freezing in the recent Arctic weather we've been having). You could say the car was mothballed, but not sealed off!

Perhaps you should still pay maintenance on mothballed ships, but at a much reduced rate.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Probably. The British put large chunks of their navy into reserve/training formations/mothballs prior to scrapping them post-WWII. Irritatingly, we've preserved The Victory (Nelson's flagship at Trafalgar) and The Warrior (the first ironclad [that wasn't French http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ]) but the only ship to survive WWII was the Belfast (only a light cruiser, now moored on The Thames). I understand the Americans have kept a lot more, partly as floating monuments. Why we couldn't have kept the Warspite (fought in both world wars, excellent service record) I don't know. Actually, I do know. Money. *!€%$£ds.

To return to the point, were the American battleships retro-fitted with Tomahawk missile launchers to fight in the Gulf? I can't remember.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Damn. Just found the right book and it turns out the 'captain' was no more than a petty officer. I doubt his mate was ranked any higher than an able seadog...

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Umm... training is of extreme importance as it is. Untrained ships get 40% penalties against trained ships. That is a huge gap to overcome. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Aye, I guess so. I ought to put my strategies back to maximum range rather than point blank to fight the AI shouldn't I? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif I always think 20% is too little, forgetting it's actually a 40% effect when you combine attack and defence bonuses.

But then the number of times an AI attack has been foiled by my construction of a new ship on the turn they've attacked... it seems wrong for a ship to go straight from the yard to beating off an enemy attack without much sweat.

I just think there should be more (yes more) emphasis on creating, moulding and husbanding a fleet. I'd also love it if the fleet experience had some bearing on how ships manoevered during strategic combat...

<hr>
"it takes the Navy three years to build a ship but three centuries to build a tradition"

"You want the moon on a stick"

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, it is +40% attack and +40% defense because you train ships and fleets to 20%. So, it is an 80% bonus against an untrained fleet. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

what do they say

Great minds think alike....

or is it

idiots never differ http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Sorry

Ment to say TDB than TDM

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

Wanderer, just to add to your post.

Even if the Turkish guy was a petty officer, as long as he was in command of the ship he is "the Captain". http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

When the old WWII battleships were brought out of mothballs (the New Jersey was one), they were refit with superior combat radar and targeting systems, communications, the engineering was upgraded somewhat, the Phoenix CIWS was installed, and yes Tomahawks were added in time to the weapon complement. Someone found out that those 16-inch guns were quite useful in the age of missile weaponry. This is a good example of mothballing old warships and bringing them back in with retrofitting.

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">When on a ship you command, as a Naval officer, you are indeed "Captain _____".

When going aboard another vessel, or being introduced while at an offshore place (say, an officer's club, or an Embassy, or whatever), youw ould be (for example) "Lieutenant _____, commanding the _______".

If you hold the ACTUAL, direct, rnak of captain, and go aboard a ship you do NOT command, you are given a "courtesy promotion" to the rank of Commodore. Why?

So that when, in a crisis, someone shouts out "Captain!" ... everyone knows who's being spoken to. The captain of THAT ship, and not the guest who happens to hold the -rank- of captain. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Or so this landlubber has been given to understand things, at any rate. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ January 15, 2003, 07:03: Message edited by: Pax ]

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You might as well raise it to a couple billion. Because if you see nothing wrong with the tactic SumariaProgrammer mentioned then clearly you are someone who thinks anything and everything is OK in the game.

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You might as well raise it to a couple billion. Because if you see nothing wrong with the tactic SumariaProgrammer mentioned then clearly you are someone who thinks anything and everything is OK in the game.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I am unable to find this reference.
And I do think if its allowed by the game you can do it. But I also think Gentlebeings rules for playing the game should be followed. For instance I agree with GEO that no trading should limited so as to make the game more interesting.

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

I believe he is refrencing the post made, where a player traded an un visited system for an AI home planet. That was very gamey imo. I also think retro-series building is gamey. the 50% max is there for game balance reasons, and to prevent abuse (retro-series sphereworlds). Doing a retro-series bypasses a game design. retro fitting while in mothball does not. big difference. retro-series building is gamey imo.

Taking advantage of a stupid AI is also gamey, IE trading an unvisited system for a homeworld. The gamey part is in the thought of even attempting this, not in the fact the AI was stupid enough to agree to it.

Those that think it is not gamey, are of the same class of people that think nothing is a crime if you don't get caught. All I say to that, is know who your entering into a MP game with. If you accept a game challange from people that feel anything goes, then don't complain later that they lived up to their reputation. or, try and be more cheezy than they are. Hacking game files is blantant cheating, and if done will suceed in noone playing a game with you again. I am talking about questionable tactics, not outright cheating.

send the credits to realpissed_2000@yahoo.com. thank you.

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

Retro-series building can possibly double the cost of building the ship. It is balanced already. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Very true.

Also in war when maximum effort is needed, are the guys in the repair garages and shops allowed to sit idle for lack of repair work?
No Way!!! They and their tools will be put to work somehow on the new stuff even if the ineffiency raise the costs.

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Personally I've never understood the need for an arbitrary limit. Well this post got me thinking and I think I've worked out how to abuse the retrofit system (took me a while as I'm not sneaky enough!) What I'm thinking of would probably be time-effective but very costly.

On a similar note, I'd submit that my refitting of entire fleets in one turn whilst sitting deep in enemy territory (I tend to pack a lot of repair bays on fleet support ships, plus the odd one with a space yard) is another gamey way of using the retro-fitting system, although I'd not thought of it in that way before. It doesn't seem right that ships could perform major overhauls on eachother whilst sitting in a storm close to an enemy homeworld http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

The emphasis should be on making major reconstructions slow, not outlawing them altogether, especially as long as there's a simple way around any limit. I quite like the way MOO2 does it (assigns the refit to the planet as a construction queue item) - although the fact that the ship disappears for the duration of the refit is a little strange.
<hr>
Ch-ching! That'll be two pence, please. Take away or eat in?

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

Retroseries not only can double, it almost assuradly will come close to doubling the cost of the ship. When you factor in the 20% extra for the new comps, the 30% disposal fee for the old comps, and the maintenance you pay for each turn the ship is sitting while being worked on. You can save some if your base maint is lower, and some if you set up the retroseries so that you remove as few components as possible. And as far as speed it it pretty much equivalent to the speed you would get by building the ship on Emergency build.

So you can build a ship on emergency build in two thirds the time and for the same cost, but are penalized by reduced ship yard effectivenss afterwards. Or you can build the ship in two thirds the time with no reduced effectivness afterwards, by spending twice the resources to build it. And by a considerable amount of added micromanagment which doesn't really translate into game terms. It's actually quite an elegant balance IMHO when building a single ship.

Where it becomes sort of gamey however is when you consider constructing a bunch of ships. By doing retroseries on all of them you can free up your space yard to pump out another ship every turn. Your first ship isn't built any faster than emergency build, and only a few turns faster than normal build, but you get another the next turn, and another the next turn after that, on and on forever until you run out of resources or don't have enough repair capacity in sector to fix all the ships you retrofit in each turn.

Because of this, and the little trick Wanderer mentioned about retrofitting while you move your fleet, I have no problem not doing it in games if playing with people that object to it's use. And I prefer that the game owner specify if it is allowed or not, so I know noone else is doing it either. But if everyone understands it and agrees it's ok, I have no problem with it.

Geoschmo

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">

[ January 15, 2003, 21:13: Message edited by: Gozra ]

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

I found something I think is Gamey ( A new term for me, I'd rather think of it as cheating).

Using my Invisible shipset, with invisible ships in a game were the others don't know you are using it.

[ January 15, 2003, 21:30: Message edited by: Ruatha ]

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

Ruatha
How would you be able to do that other than in a hot seat game?

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

Well... you have to download the ship sets used by other players in the game, or you'll get randomly changing sets. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

EDIT: was not intended to be ironic. "can" should have been "can't".
Fyron, right, I guess I can't imagine someone down loading a ship set and not looking at a few of the ships.
what am I missing here?

Is this gamey?
Start a series of "Play Style" or "Play Preferances" thread to see if your advesarys will give away their play style.

[ January 15, 2003, 23:53: Message edited by: Gryphin ]

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That was one of my favorite things about the 'blind research' option in Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri. You only specified the general area of tech you wanted your scientists to focus on, but had no control over what specific tech they'd discover.

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

To Gozra:

Are you saying you would actually trade your home planet for an empty system???
It sort of sounds like maybe you didn't realize what SamuriProgrammers friend did. He selected Ancient Race, claimed a system he have NEVER been to and then traded it to the AI for his home planet!! Clearly there is a bug on how the AI evaluates the trade value of a system

Generaly I'm of the opinion that if the game allows it it's fair play (the opposition to retro series building really baffles me!) but I think we should avoid taking advantage of really obvious bugs like this. Of course this is just one reason to play PBW all human games.

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yea that was a really cool feature. Make a nice addition for SEV

MOO2's occasional research breakthrough was neat too.

[ January 15, 2003, 23:46: Message edited by: DavidG ]

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yea that was a really cool feature. Make a nice addition for SEV

MOO2's occasional research breakthrough was neat too.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That would be cool, but tough to implement I would think without losing much of the modability of SEIV.

Geoschmo

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

Now that I've had some time to think about it here is my definition of "gamey"

Taking advantage of an obvious bug in a game that you suspect your opponents are not aware off.

Of course this would then lead to a discussion on what an "obvious bug" is and how you should know what your opponents do or do not know. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Do you think?? I would think it would be a 'simple' thing like adding a field to each tech specifying what Category it falls into. Definatly something that would be more an SEV feature rather than a patch I would think

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You could mod that quite easily in planetsize.txt

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

Is this the Troll thread? Who's winning?

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

There are already 3 fields. The reason it would not work, is the difference in cost in each tech in that field. In SCAM, the cost of the next tech was based on the number of techs you had previously discovered. Gas giant colonization would have to be the same cost as the armor, or any other in that field, and every turn the cost for every tech in that field would go up. You then would run into level problems. you would have to get all the level 0 techs out of the way before a random level 1 could be chosen as the next tech. Other wise, you might never get troops-0 and have level 5 armor. Blind research was one of the SMAC options I didn't use. It did not always stick to the field of choice either.

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well clearly the current 3 fields are not sufficient for this purpose. Also clearly it could be done. OK granted maybe not simple or even desireable by the majority. (I did say it would be more of an SE5 thing than an SE4 http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif )

Edit: And assuming a logical grouping of the techs it might actually be interesting to have a game where you had to get all level 0 techs in a field before moving to level 1.

[ January 16, 2003, 02:51: Message edited by: DavidG ]

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Didn't think about that, doh

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

I played against a nearly invisible ship set.
I quickly replaced it with another one. I just had to rename the replacement set.

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yep, exactly. The way things are displayed in the game depends on what you have installed on your machine. Some shipsets have really awful colors and some are hard to tell apart. In these cases I have often changed the color of the race_main.bmp to make it easier for me to view.
The invisible or hard to see ships are easily replaced with generic ones.
Rollo