Re: STM "Final v1.7.5" Discussion
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yikes. Your not planning on changing the current Version so it works on both Gold and 1.49 are you? When I edited the data files to make it work on 1.49 I had to change a lot of stuff for the worse because 1.49 did not support various features. ie. The bussard ram Jet thingy is now an 'only one per ship' because 1.49 did not support 2 or 3 per ship. Also many of the damage types had to be changed. etc etc. I forget everything I changed now.

I got it working in ver 1.49 but it is far better in Gold. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I had considered it, but now, hell no. They will just have to buy GOLD.

Re: STM "Final v1.7.5" Discussion
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Using the Star Trek Map, the Federation should be starting in the center of the map while the Klingons should be starting in the south east. You should not be starting next to each other if you've followed the instructions at:Star Trek Map Page

If you still have problems after following these instructions, please contact me at rickperreault@msn.com

I've got a much newer Version of the map that if you all bug me enough for I will make the time to post.

Re: STM "Final v1.7.5" Discussion
 

It was the united consortium of planets--not the feds--heh

Re: STM "Final v1.7.5" Discussion
 

*bugs Userx a tremendous amount for new Version of the map*

Re: STM "Final v1.7.5" Discussion
 

Something wrong with Vorta Captain I-II:

Name := Vorta Captain I
...
Ability 2 Type := Combat Movement
Ability 2 Descr := Generates 2 movement.
Ability 2 Val 1 := 1

Name := Vorta Captain II
...
Ability 2 Type := Combat Movement
Ability 2 Descr := Generates 4 Combat movement.
Ability 2 Val 1 := 2

[ February 06, 2004, 09:31: Message edited by: aiken ]

Re: STM "Final v1.7.5" Discussion
 

Since installing the 1.5.1 fix patch (applied to the 1.5.1 patch) my game started under 1.5.0 crashes with the error message

" Access violation at address 004909G6 in module SE4.exe. Read of address 00000004."

This occurs during the mod loading and at turn generation. Before the fix patch things were fine. Sigh....I'd just finished researching the third colonisation tech, too.

Is this a problem with one of the patches or my saved game or bad luck?

Re: STM "Final v1.7.5" Discussion
 

The fix does say that it will break savegames that were started with 1.5.0 or 1.5.1 without the fix. It adds back in the FQM Deluxe SectType.txt that the mod should have had. But, this causes any savegame started with the old SectType.txt file (the one from stock SE4) to not work. To finish your savegame, just copy the SectType.txt file from the stock data folder into the STM data folder. Apply the fix once you are done with the current savegame.

[ February 06, 2004, 18:27: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: STM "Final v1.7.5" Discussion
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Missed that...thanks.

Re: STM "Final v1.7.5" Discussion
 

Sounds like just a few minor issues that need workign out.

Re: STM "Final v1.7.5" Discussion
 

One noob question about boarding attack/defense strength in STM.

In the stock game boarding attack/defense strength calculated as Ability Value x 4, but STM works different(?):
Attack:
Boarding Parties I>
Ability 1 Descr := Provides 20 space marines ..skipped..
Ability 1 Val 1 := 2
=> multiplier = 10

Boarding Parties II>
Ability 1 Descr := Provides 40 space marines ..skipped..
Ability 1 Val 1 := 5
=> multiplier = 8

Boarding Parties III>
Ability 1 Descr := Provides 60 space marines ..skipped..
Ability 1 Val 1 := 10
=> multiplier = 6

Boarding Parties V>
Ability 1 Descr := Provides 100 space marines ..skipped..
Ability 1 Val 1 := 20
=> multiplier = 5

Defense:
Security Personnel I-V> multiplier = 8

Federation Security I-V> multiplier = 10

Klingon Shock Troops I>
Ability 2 Descr := Provides 100 Klingon ..skipped..
Ability 2 Val 1 := 30
=> multiplier = 3,3333...

Klingon Shock Troops II>
Ability 2 Descr := Provides 140 Klingon ..skipped..
Ability 2 Val 1 := 45
=> multiplier = 3,1111...

I'm confused. Have I missed something important about boarding?

[ February 06, 2004, 21:02: Message edited by: aiken ]

Re: STM "Final v1.7.5" Discussion
 

The description matters not for boarding parties and such, it is just the ability numbers that matter. However, the ratio between space marines and boarding points should either be constant, or the descriptions should have extra info stating why that ratio is different. It is always a good idea to place something in the description like (provides [Ability 1 Val] boarding attack/defense points), which ever is appropriate, so that you can get the raw-numbers in game.

An example:

Name := Security Station II
Ability 1 Descr := Provides equipment and accommodations for 90 security personnel (30 boarding defense).
Ability 1 Val 1 := 30

Name := Security Station III
Ability 1 Descr := Provides equipment and accommodations for 60 heavily armed security personnel (40 boarding defense).
Ability 1 Val 1 := 40

Name := Security Station V
Ability 1 Descr := Provides equipment and accommodations for 100 elite security personnel (60 boarding defense).
Ability 1 Val 1 := 60

As you can see, the ratio decreases with increasing technology, but it is explained due to how heavily armed the security forces are. And, the raw number for the ability value is provided, so you do not have to look up the value in the data files. Decreasing ratios between boarding (offense/defense) and number of personnel are fine, as long as the raw number is provided as well. The other option (best for not having some flavorful changes to armament, training, etc.) is to keep the ratio constant. Either option works fine. But, the option of a decreasing ratio with no explanation and no display of the raw numbers is not a good option.

Re: STM "Final v1.7.5" Discussion
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I had considered it, but now, hell no. They will just have to buy GOLD. [/QB]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Or settle for playing Version 1.30 which is what I based the se 1.49 Version on. I played it to about turn 20 and everything seemed to work ok. AI's seemed to be expanding normal.
They would have to download the Gold Version and then the files I sent you would be copied and overwrite the gold mode files. They would also have to delete the races you've added since ver 1.30 like the Orions.
I could also zip the whole ver 1.30 SE1.49 files and upload them somewhere if there is much interest in them.

Re: STM "Final v1.7.5" Discussion
 

Irrefragable answer. And unfortunately STM neither keeps constant multipliers nor provides additional boarding points description. That hurts when playing with ship capture tactics. So looking forward for Atrocities' opinion.

Re: STM "Final v1.7.5" Discussion
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I'm sorry, but I am confused by this word. What did you mean?

My post was indirectly stating that Atrocities needs to change the current system used in STM. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: STM "Final v1.7.5" Discussion
 

Just started playing the mod, up to 1.5.0, found the following minor problems (if they are)

1. the 3rd line under race description is unable to be read, doesn't scroll down

2. giving ship move order by cliking on wormhole button doesn't work, you have to use the arrow button lst then clik on the wormhole button

3. In constructin a Space station, won't let put engine on it. However, when you clik on the engine it does show it is available to be put on a base. so the question is, Is the space stations allowed to have at least l engine or not?

Note this was in the 150 Version, I have just upgraded to 151 and the patch fix and have started a new game. So I don't know if these problems are still there, but thought I would let you know, if still there I will let you know

just some ideas Mac

Re: STM "Final v1.7.5" Discussion
 

Irrefragable http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif

Irrefragable- not to be refuted; undeniable

That is what my 3.5 inches thick Random House Dictionary of The English Language says. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: STM "Final v1.7.5" Discussion
 

mac that is funny Version 150

it is almost true http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: STM "Final v1.7.5" Discussion
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Sounds like a bad translation to me, not a real English word... oh well.

Re: STM "Final v1.7.5" Discussion
 

Oh, sorry guys. Thats my bugged English, I meant "exhaustive".

*/me is erasing that stupid 127 MB English-Russian-English dictionary*

[ February 07, 2004, 04:33: Message edited by: aiken ]

Re: STM "Final v1.7.5" Discussion
 

no worries aiken

Re: STM "Final v1.7.5" Discussion
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Hey, don't worry. Most native English speakers are only aware of a small fraction of the words in the English language. Being the bastardized offspring of several different Germanic Languages, whatever the native language of the original inhabitants of England were, French, Latin, Spanish, and some others does that to a language. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ February 07, 2004, 07:05: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: STM "Final v1.7.5" Discussion
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">These are interesting points, however when the mod was set up I was going from information that Captain Kwok had supplied for components such as these. I had not considered that the description or multipliers would become a topic of discussion. However since they have, I will go with any good recommendation for the componants for purpose of balance and better game play.

This mod is a continuing work and I am always interested in making improvements or refinements that will make it a better playing mod for those who are interested enough to play it.

Modding is an incredibly time consuming process that can eat up a day faster than a heroin injections, and with equal effects. No offense, but if you add up the time I have spent directly or in directly working on this mod, talking about this mod, posting about it, or reading ideas, emails, bug reports, etc, it would easily be classified as a full time job. That is 8 hours a day 5 days a week.

That is a hell of a lot of time to have invested into any one project.

Factor in Kwoks time on figure things out, building a web page, and much of the same other ground work things such as posting about the mod, working out details and such, and this mod becomes its own free time sucking black hole.

Don't get me wrong, I have enjoyed the journey, and the result of our efforts, everyones, is a nice playable mod.

Now that it is playable, the tweaking and balancing of things has begun. When the mod was set up ideas and concepts we newly employeed and the result of these could not have been foreseen. So yes some balance issues could not have been worked out before hand, they had to be worked out through game play and testing. ONLY RECENTLY have we begun to do this.

The process is an on going one, and I really want to do what is right by the mod and by the players, but not all things can be done or explained as to why they were done the way they were done. Simply put it was the best I could come up with at the time, and it seemed like a good idea to me. If I was wrong, well I am only human. And that is what play testing and bug reports are for. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

I had wanted to have the mod locked into a Version for a long playable period of time. 1.3.5 was that first attempt. It was also the first time the mod was actually uploaded to PBW. I do not want to bother Geoschmo with a new Version every week so I keep the updates and accumilated them over time hoping that more and more bugs, balance, and play issues would be discovered and improvements made so that when I did publish the latest Version, it would stand for a significat time period without having to be updated. Well like all good plans, it didn't happen that way.

Oh well, what is is what is. As people begin to finsih off there old games and graduate to the latest Version of the mod, the balance will be restored and more ideas, tweaks, and bugs will be addressed and when the time comes, we can all move to the next Version as one and not peace meal as it has always seemed to have been.

Thanks for reading, and thanks for all the emails asking me to explain why I did what I did. Enjoy the mod. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ February 07, 2004, 11:27: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

Re: STM "Final v1.7.5" Discussion
 

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


<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Can you tell me which race?

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">This is not a mod issue.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">As far as I know you have never been able to put engines on a space station. Or at least I have never been able to.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Each Version comes with a Revision History. That file will tell you what changes were made to the mod. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">LOL Not quite, but getting there. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ February 07, 2004, 11:41: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

Re: STM "Final v1.7.5" Discussion
 

[quote]Originally posted by Atrocities:

Quote:

Oh well, what is is what is. As people begin to finsih off there old games and graduate to the latest Version of the mod, the balance will be restored and more ideas, tweaks, and bugs will be addressed and when the time comes, we can all move to the next Version as one and not peace meal as it has always seemed to have been.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Obvious decision. Some fellows here (better to say - one fellow http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ) need to relax and switch their (his) attention to something different. Personally, I'd like to collect a Big Bug Bag rather than post them one-by-one. It will be better for all, I suppose.

Thank you for STM and all the huge work you've done, Atrocities.

*/me is looking for some other incomplete mod around. But stop, what is this? Hohoho, ADAMANT! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif *

Re: STM "Final v1.7.5" Discussion
 

So If I understand this, this is a useless tech! if it will not go past the "0" damage point then how will it do ANY damage?

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">right, then you should still see them at a range of 5, but, you do not (or I don't) playing tac combat so I should see them move till they run out a gas, right? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Nope. They start at range 0. Once the get to any range with 0 damage, they disappear. So that range 1 or 2 or 3 with 0 damage will make them stop. They can not ever reach range 5.

Quote:

Originally posted by President Elect Shang: Damn Fyron you are a “Shrapnel Fanatic” with “10489” Posts, get a life man. Try a woman or something.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That was highly insulting. I have a life. The ability to type quickly allows you to make a lot of Posts in a short amount of time. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">

Re: STM "Final v1.7.5" Discussion
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Just what is that supposed to mean?

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Adamant Mod is in the testing phase right now, with 3 different PBW games running. Other than AI files and play balance tweaking, the mod is nearly complete. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: STM "Final v1.7.5" Discussion
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The matter concerns fellow whose nick is Aiken http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif And nobody else.

Quote:

Adamant Mod is in the testing phase right now, with 3 different PBW games running. Other than AI files and play balance tweaking, the mod is nearly complete. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That is excellent news for me! I was really confused by the Version numbering (current v.0.13.29). I thought it is early beta still. D/L-ing it now.

[ February 07, 2004, 18:38: Message edited by: aiken ]

Re: STM "Final v1.7.5" Discussion
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">It is still in beta. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif It has been on the .13 series for a while because that is what has been used for the PBW beta testing games. Versions that differ only in the Last number (28 in this case) will not break savegames if you upgrade. But differences in the first two numbers will (0 and 13 in this case). The AI doesn't really work, but the mod works great in multiplayer. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Make sure to follow the link to the latest development patches on the downloads page, as it contains the frequent patches released for use in the beta testing games. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Eek! Quoted before you edited! But it still applies. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ February 07, 2004, 18:41: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: STM "Final v1.7.5" Discussion
 

Aikens bug reports are very very helpful and I can't thank him enough for posting them. Better to have all things out in the open than letting them go without consideration.

Thank you Aiken for posting the bugs and questions. This is how we make a good mod. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

And the Adamant mod is a great mod to get into. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: STM "Final v1.7.5" Discussion
 

Question to All,

I thought give modding-programming a try. Can everyone tell me how the family numbering code system works. I know why there a family numbering system, but don't know what numbers ranges that are used. Seems like 1000, 2000, 4000 numbers have uses. Unsure which would be safe to use. So I started with 7600's range, better than any other as far I as I can tell.

Lighthorse
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

Re: STM "Final v1.7.5" Discussion
 

There is no system. The only thing you need to keep is mind is to not use family numbers that are duplicates of any other.

Re: STM "Final v1.7.5" Discussion
 

I need some help on a component I wanted to add into my Mod. It is called the Uber-Colada. The component takes up 1 space and cost very little. The problem I am running into is testing it. I decided to use the Star Trek Mod as a test base (hence I am posting here) but I am having no luck. Here is what happens:

When I put it on:
A Federation ship they insist they can synthesize it better.
The Klingon’s won’t touch it.
The Romulan’s try to interrogate it.
The Ferangi try to sell it back to me.
I tried the Borg and they assimilated it, that didn’t go over too well.

Any suggestions?

[ February 07, 2004, 21:48: Message edited by: President Elect Shang ]

Re: STM "Final v1.7.5" Discussion
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Family numbers are really just used for display latest only etc, so as long as you don't duplicate any of the numbers - it should be fine.

There are large gaps everywhere, so you can start much lower than 7600 if you want.

Re: STM "Final v1.7.5" Discussion
 

Thanks Phoenix-D and Captain Kwok, I wasn't completely sure. Nice to know for sure.

Thanks
Lighthorse

Re: STM "Final v1.7.5" Discussion
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Don't forget that they also control which components can have their abilities stack, such as Combat To Hit Bonus or whatever it is called. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: STM "Final v1.7.5" Discussion
 

up to 100 turns on 1.5.1.1 so far everything smooth - good job

Re: STM "Final v1.7.5" Discussion
 

I'm I really the only one who has experienced ships refusing to fire in this game? It really takes the fun out of the game when your 40 or 50 non firing ships get beat by 6 or 7.

Re: STM "Final v1.7.5" Discussion
 

Will the Economies of Scale mod work with the STM?

Re: STM "Final v1.7.5" Discussion
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">What are the ships specs?

Re: STM "Final v1.7.5" Discussion
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I don't think so, well not too easily - although you can accomplish similar effects by making the larger ships/mounts more expensive. Perhaps reducing the resource facility yields etc.

Re: STM "Final v1.7.5" Discussion
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">What are the ships specs? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I gather you are perhaps implying the ships could not fire at the targets in question becasue they had no weapons that could do so. This is definately not the case.
I would be happy to send anyone the game files to see if they can figure it out.

What they had in common was a strategty set to not fire on planets since they had no weapons that could do so but they did not fire on ships either. And i've seen this behaviour before with default 'optimal range' orders.

[ February 09, 2004, 02:30: Message edited by: DavidG ]

Re: STM "Final v1.7.5" Discussion
 

No.

I was thinking along the lines of supplies or something to that effect.

E-mail the game files to me. I'll take a look.

Re: STM "Final v1.7.5" Discussion
 

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

Re: STM "Final v1.7.5" Discussion
 

Hmm. Something fishy is going on - I'd stick to the default strategies with the mod as I've never had a problem with them.

BTW, you really need to get higher level combat/ecm sensors ASAP! You're going to get slaughtered - especially as the Romulans!

Re: STM "Final v1.7.5" Discussion
 

That was a very odd combat...

Re: STM "Final v1.7.5" Discussion
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">...but lucky for you, eh? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Re: STM "Final v1.7.5" Discussion
 

Meh. My platforms would have destroyed half or more of his fleet easily, had they gotten in range of the planet better. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: STM "Final v1.7.5" Discussion
 

There is a much better Romulan weapon than the Mini Plasma Disruptor - the regular Romulan Plasma Disruptor - it's similar to Federation phasers and has 10 levels.

The top Romulan weapon is the Plasma Torpedo - but it's only good if you can get away the first shot and are in close range - and ofc, if you can hit the enemy ships. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

The Klingons I think were vastly underpowered in 1.3.5, or at least it seemed that way.

Ofc, the Federation is still tops overall of the regular races. However, I haven't tried the most recent Version of the mod yet so I cannot say with any certainty that this remains entirely true in 1.5.1! Actually, I think the Defiant ships need to be made much, much, more expensive (they were way too awesome in 1.3.5 for so little resources) and the Juggernought size ship needs to be dropped. There are some other ship-size issues but I don't have the exact figures handy so I'll wait to later to post about them.

One thing I will suggest is the reduction of the mounts in equal size/damage ratios. i.e. twice the size gives twice the damage. If a true leaky shield system is used, the advantage lies in the initial punch for larger ships as you'd expect. Smaller ships need to be made more practical in the mod, so their defense bonuses and a minor accuracy penalty to the larger mounts would go along ways to balancing it out.

Also, there seems to be a half attempt at leaky armor (some components have low, low, structure points as you expect, while others do not) - but at the same time all the armor has the damaged first ability so it is kind of a mix-up.

Re: STM "Final v1.7.5" Discussion
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">...with the exception of Armor, Emissive Armor, and Dominion Varethiel Armor, which have no Armor ability.

Re: STM "Final v1.7.5" Discussion
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yup but the key phrase in my post was "early advantage" The Romulans have to research the Mini Plasma to level 5 before they can even reserach the Plasma Disruptor. The Feds can research their phasers as soon as the get Physics 1.

Edit: This is in ver 1.35 so perhaps something change in 1.51 but i haven't d/l that yet.

[ February 09, 2004, 14:03: Message edited by: DavidG ]