Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

[quote]Originally posted by Rollo:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:

Quote:

...AFAIK: 1) The AI will automatically build one per system, guaranteed. 2) The AI will follow the build instructions for planets including any calls for resupply depots. AI modders, what say you?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">1) nope, only when called for
2) once a resupply is built, the AI will ignore further calls in this system

So yes, the AI treats Resupply Depots as a system wide ability. Not sure if it can be tricked into building more by adding a bogus ability. I never tried.
Which begs the question, cybersol: Why would you like to have the AI build more than one depot in a system? Just curious.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Why not combine the resupply depot function with the space yard itself? I always wondered why the space yards couldn't have a gas station built in, seems a bit silly to have a completely separate facility just to pump gas and reload weapons.

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

That's more of a design issue...
Spaceyards and resupply depots were separate in SE3, too.

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'm not sure what you mean by a design issue... is that bad? It would seem to solve the problem neatly, if it would work.

You could always adjust the cost of the space yard to make it take the same number of turns to construct as the facilities would have separately.

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

He meant that having those abilities on separate facilities is how MM always intended it to be. It is not really a balance issue.

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

Proportions makes most Q-reactors mega-supply components. It also extends the tree a long ways - eventually you can get the infinite Q reactor, but it takes a huge amount or research and then is big and expensive. AI Campaign mod I haven't studied, but I gather it uses many things from Proportions and this is probably one of them.

LGM, you're incorrect that doing this drains supplies from fleeted ships. Supplies are shared on the basis of absolute numbers of supplies, not on a percentage basis.

And yes, there is a neat effect in that if a "super-supply" Q Reactor gets destroyed, it has to return to a resupply depot before it will recharge.

PvK

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

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

I like all of these ideas. Inability to dodge due to need to keep the shrine undisturbed makes some sense. Making Talisman a low-damage armor component so it tends to not work as soon as the ship is "violated" also seems appropriate. Reducing the effect to a unique to-hit bonus I also like, though it does remove the unique ability of the Talisman (which is an unbalancing ability, but maybe it makes more sense to balance it in other ways but preserve its effect).

Net suggestion: Give talisman a -20 defense penalty and make it 10kT "hit first/armor", explaining that it cannot be disturbed by damage or excessive maneuvering without damaging its holy balance and making it not work. Retain the unique "always hits" ability.

PvK

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">A defense penalty would be nice for play balance, but it does not make sense that a blessed ship is easier to hit.

In my mod, I made it 10KT armor, so that you can take it out with the first non shield hit. Temporary blessing.

Otherwise, treat it as an improvement to Sensor III: Either Stackable + 20% or Nonstackable +85%. I think that this would make Religious still worth taking as you get a modifer no one else gets. Combine this with War and Death shrines and they will still be tough advesaries, but no longer untouchable.

This would take away my biggest complaint with the Talisman: Range does not matter, which makes it a +1000% to hit and at least a +50% to defense by hanging out a long range.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

Those all sound like good ideas to me.

The HEM should have some improvement in order to keep it being somewhat better than the Torpedo, which presumably everyone agrees should be improved.

PvK

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What about the mental singularity generater (MSG)? It is definitely the same type of weapon as those two.

And I still think the following mentioned earlier is a trivial change to help future AI's:
Add a second dummy ability to Resupply Depots to enable them to be called for in both a system wide capacity and a individual planet capacity.
Rollo, SJ, PvK, what do you think of this change?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

i like it.
to compensate perharps the talisman can function as a mid-tech security system http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif (as in boarding)

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

Yes, I developed a system kind of like that for Proportions mod, although the math is a little more complicated there. In general though yes, it'd be good for balance to continue defense penaties based on size through the BC->DN sizes which currently have zero-modifiers.

PvK

P.S. I don't know though that I think Q Reactors are unbalanced. I think they are just unpleasant (for my own tastes as a player) because they are so cheap that once they're developed, they practically remove the issue of supply from the game, which I think is less fun/interesting. Is the AI really hurt by the extra cost of putting them on everything? Surely it benefits a lot from having them, since it won't be stupidly running out of supplies like it often does.

PvK

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The best thing, IMO, is what I've done with Small Ships -- pick a mass that gets a 0% defense bonus/penalty -- let's say the Light Cruiser, at 400kT. Then decide what interfal of mass (50kT works) gets what % ECM modifier (5% or 10% might work).

So a 300kT Destroyer would get a +10% or +20% ECM bonus; a 500kT Cruiser would get -10% or -20%.

At the extreme ends, the Escort (150kT ... three mass incremetns underweight) gets a +15% to +30% defense bonus; the Dreadnought, at 1000kT, is 600kT "overweight", earnign it a -60% or -120% defense penalty, and the Baseship (at 1500kT) is 500kT evewn MORE overweight, giving it a -110% or -220% defense penalty.

The benefits of this are that it's intuitive and follows a pattern. The actual modifier per mass-increment can be altered for certain classes of ship (i.e., all transports may have a worse ECM modifier ... all carriers may have a better ECMmodifier than their mass might otherwise indicate ... etc).</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">

[ July 31, 2003, 22:44: Message edited by: PvK ]

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

You should probably take the square root of those modifiers in order to account for the conVersion from mass to ship profile size. (well, square of the cube root, but you get the idea)

[ July 31, 2003, 22:47: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ]

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

Topic for discussion:

Supply storage bays...
Engines hold more supplies per KT than the dedicated supply bays.

Should the supply bays be improved, and if so, how?

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

not realy, its an 'extra'. you cant put more engines but you can put more storage. and they're not vulnurable to engine-only damage.

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

I would say -25% or -50% to cost and add at least 250 to each level (750/1000/1250). I would prefer +250*lvl (750/1250/2000) or something similar.

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

Taera:
So you have no problem with a 10kt engine holding the same amount of supplies as a 20kt, dedicated supply tank?

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

I wouldn't mind seeing supply components cut to 10kT with no other changes.

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

no, i have no problems.

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

Is that no problem from a reality standpoint or from a balance standpoint?

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That's my feeling too (reality issue, not balance).

edit: deleted the bit about small ships

[ August 01, 2003, 16:50: Message edited by: spoon ]

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

I am going from a very fuzzy memeory here, but I could have sworn there was some issue with changing the supply components that caused the AI to start using them instead of engines, or putting too many engines on their ships, or something goofy like that. Problably should test any changes made pretty throughly to make sure they don't do that.

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

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

Early on, it's silly how more engiens gets you supplies faster than more supply bays. Later on, I still only add supply bays for supply-hog designs ... and even then, only if and when I hit the maximum number of engines allowed for the hull.

Right now engines get 50 supplies per kT. Starting supply bays should get at LEAST the same rate ... if not more (I suggest 75kT to 100kT as a good starting point). Ending supply bays shoudl be at LEAST four times better at holding supplies than an equivalent tonnage of engines.

Supply Bay 1 could hold 2,000 (twice as good per kT as engines)
Supply bay 2 could hold 3,000 (thee times as good per kT as engines)
Supply Bay 3 could hold 4,000 (four times as good per kT as engines)

That's how I think it should be, anyway.

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

Even if we don't modify the supply storage component the balance mod has to be tested carefully before sending it to Aaron.

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

Geo - what you mean is the effect when you half the size of supply storage as well as the supplies they carry. When engines carry more supplies than the storages, the AI will use extra illegal engines when the design calls for 'supply storage' ability.

re: changing supply storage - I do not agree with that.
Firstly changing the size of the storage can have unintended foul effects with the AI (I am talking custom AI here).
Secondly I think that the reality reason is a bad one. Neither of us is a spaceship engineer and knows how engines store their supplies and how supply storage works. There can be many points and explanations made this way or other. All of them totally hypothetic and moot. I will not go into such a discussion.
Thirdly, arbitrarily rasing the values for supply storage (as well as allowing them to count as cargo on transport hulls) will have profound effects on the game. The range of fleets will be raised and overall play balance effected. I am not aware of a balance issue that said: 'Fleets donn't have enough range.'

For these reasons I think it is better the leave supply storage alone.

Rollo

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

And this is exactly why there need to be polls made for most of the suggestions... to see what a lot more than just a few people think of a change.

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

I think a poll for a stock change is a bad idea. It will mostly only reflect the opinions of those that frequent the forums. Which as a group tend to be a little more involved in modding in general and likely have less of a tendancy to object to stock changes then the general population of SE4 players.

Geoschmo

[ August 01, 2003, 20:28: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

Oh, so going by what an even smaller number of people think is a better idea? Hardly. Is not the goal to make it acceptable to the largest number of people possible?

[ August 01, 2003, 21:15: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Umm? Doesn't this thread and the suggestions in it already represent those who visit the forum? How would those people who never drop by here even know that there is an attempt to balance the stock files in the first place? In that case, what's wrong with using polls to decide on different matters?

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I did not suggest that a group of four or five people is more representative of the wider SE4 audience then a forum poll would be, but you cannot claim that it is less so. Just because a poll would get a larger result does not mean it would be a more accurate result. The fact is that statistically the difference between a small handful of people and a slightly larger handful that would answer a forum poll question is insignificant when compared to the wider Se4 audience. And when you consider that the personality of a player that frequents the forum is very likely different then the average Se4 player, the results are not likely to be representative at all for either handfull.

Since we cannot get an accurate sampling of the wider Se4 audience we must make assumptions. By the level of sales, the relative lack of complaint and widespread and generally positive feedback about the game we can assume that the general attitude among the wider Se4 audience is a positive one. Making radical changes to the stock game late in it's life without a compelling basis in customer disatisfaction is not wise.

Some changes can be done without risking a general backlash among the players. That is what we are trying to accomplish. Moving the game more towards what we in the forum believe is a point of balence in the game, without tipping it so far that we tick off the larger population of players that doesn't have a big problem with the game as it is now.

I don't disagree with all of your ideas. Many of them are ones I wish had been done in Se4 from the begining and are on my personal list of wishes for Se5. But I believe many of them are too large of changes to make this late in the stock Se4. That is what user mods are for.

Geoschmo

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

Supply is kinda weird in that it looks less efficient in terms of space than engines, and also in that it costs more than most weapons do. A tanker ship tends to be more expensive than a warship, at least before the final most expensive weapons are developed, and sometimes even then.

However those are not really balance issues. They are perception issues and "does it make sense" issues.

There is sort-of a balance issue in that it doesn't get you much to choose supply storage instead of engines, but since there is a max number of engines per design, it doesn't keep supply from being useful.

In fact, I suspect the reason supply components are as limited and expensive as they are, is an intentional balance design so that fleet range can only be extended at significant expense.

PvK

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

After reading many Posts about the supply storage component I've to say it wasn't good suggestion to make it bigger. As stated it isn't a balance problem. However I think supply storage should count as cargo. If I'm going to build a tanker ship a transport ship sounds the most obvious choice.

Would it be too big change to give some bonuses to transports? At this time the only advantages to choose a transport instead of normal ship is the fact that it's few hudreds cheaper than corresponding normal ship and sometimes the transport is the biggest ship you have.

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

Regarding supply storage as cargo - airplanes don't carry our luggage in the fuel tank do they?

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

How is that a meaningful analogy?

[ August 01, 2003, 22:46: Message edited by: PvK ]

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Umm? Supplies are basically fuel/power in SE4 and so supply storage would be like a fuel tank or 'battery' unit and not empty space like a cargo hold - so is my analogy not accurate in that case?

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Let's continue your analogy. Let us say that the planes the US military uses for cargo transports -- C141's, C5A's, etc -- count as "transport hulls" -- but let's assume the SE4/stock concept of supply NOT counting as cargo holds true.

Explain the air tankers used for mid-air refuelling. That ain't their wings they're drawing fuel for the fighter from!

FWIW, I too think Transports might need a bit of a boost; perhap a slight maintenance discount? Or somewhat bigger hull sizes (400/800/1200 maybe) ... ? The problem is in tyring to make transports attractive for what they do, while not making them more attractive as carriers than the actual carrier hulls (since fighter bays count as cargo ...).

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

Kwok, did you think the suggestion was to add a positive cargo storage ability to supply storage containers, to allow transporting units? I think the suggestion was just to give them the ability, but set the value of it to zero, so that the game would allow players to create Transport hulls full of supply storage for use as tankers. It wouldn't allow them to carry units in their supply tanks. That is, to allow supply storage to qualify as cargo only for the purpose of the "must include 50% cargo components" limit.

I think this sort of thing is a fine idea for adding more interesting design options. I did this in Proportions, as have other mods. I don't know that it's a pressing balance issue, though.

For more interesting trade-offs, though, I'd suggest trading off speed, size, combat modifiers, and maintenance cost modifiers.

One thing that does seem like a minor balance issue, however, is that there is practically no reason to use a colony ship hull (except in bluffing games employing reverse psychology). It has exactly the same stats as a Small Transport, except that the requirement for a colony module is more restrictive, so it just guarantees your opponent that it really is a colony ship, while a Small Transport could be a colonizer, a carrier, a mine layer or a troop transport.

How about if we removed the 20kT cargo ability from colonizer modules (so Small Transport couldn't be used as a colony ship), and then added 20kT cargo ability to the HULL of the Colony Ships in vehiclesizes.txt (so they'd still have the same design performance and not break any AI)?

PvK

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

Geo, that again has absolutely nothing to do with saying using polls is a bad idea... and you seem to be alone on the issue of polls... It would support an argument against the whole idea of trying to create a stock balance mod in the first place, but not one against using polls.

[ August 02, 2003, 02:41: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That would break AI that uses a warship hull and no extra cargo storage as colonizers.

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I can see a couple ways to address this sort of thing. Any one or two of the following might suffice:

</font>

• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Change the colony ship's size -- anything from 320kT to 350kT might work, without being terribly unbalanced.</font>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Give the colony ship a speed bonus of some kind (even +1 bonus movement might work).</font>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Give the hull a small maintenance discount.</font>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Change transports to be 400/800/1200 (which makes transports more attractive for some roles even when DNs are available), with a commensurate cost increase
  </font>

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

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">True. Only modded AI's do that, though, but still.

PvK

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

Bah. There is way too much whining going on about old files becoming obselete as a result of a new patch. Sometimes that is inevitable and necessary, unless you want zero progress to be made with the patches, of course.

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

fyron here is right (*DRAMATIC GASP* OH MY GOD I AGREED WITH FYRON!!!) (no offense meant fyron, just i usually disagree with you http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ). Old games are old, its the latest Version of the game that matters most. If you realy have to, you can always install the previous patch on a clone copy of the game.

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif meh, I was only trying to be helpful and point out things that could be problematic.
If such advice is not welcome, fine. I won't bother with it anymore.
Have fun with your mod.

Rollo

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

We still have a number of outstanding issues, so I thought I'd try to summarize a few to see if we can reach a consensus, then move on to the next batch of issues.

PDC. The majority seem to think these are too powerful vis-a-vis missiles. Suggestions include:
1. Reduce or eliminate current bonus to hit.
2. Reduce range.
3. Change reload rate to 2.

PPB. What many see as a niche weapon is instead the primary DF weapon of the early and mid game.
1. Smooth out damage progression (I believe this has been agreed to).
2. Reduce range.
3. Impose a penalty to hit. 10%?
4. Increase supplies used. Double?
5. Improve armor.
6. Make phased shields easier to reach on the research tree.

Armor. No real consensus that there is a problem here, but some feel armor should be more equal to shields in protection per kt. Also, there are concerns that the AI is not using armor effectively.
1. Remove Chemistry I as a requirement to research Armor.
2. Add several levels to armor research, with improved components at the higher levels.
3. Improve armor protection somewhat for the current armor types.
4. Reduce the weight of the current armor components.
5. Add redundant requirements to armor to help the AI use it properly.
6. Add Skip All Shields to other weapons, which indirectly boosts armor relative to shields.

*************

My personal preferences - until someone convinces me otherwise... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

PDC - Leave as is, but change reload rate to 2.
PPB - Reduce max range to 5 (same as DUC), make phased shields easier to reach, improve armor slightly.
Armor - My first choice would be adding more tech levels (as in DevNull) but I think that will cause AI problems. If so I'd settle for boosting the amount of protection for each type of armor by 10-15%. This still leaves shields noticeably better for overall protection, but there are more shield-skipping weapons to balance that. Either way, I'd still like to eliminate Chemistry as a prereq, making it much easier to research armor early.

All IMHO, of course.

[ August 03, 2003, 17:50: Message edited by: Sir Whiskers ]

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

rollo, im sorry if thats how it seems, didnt mean to http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif i just remember all the worries from the patch times, i think its a little unneccessary. Your advice is always welcome.

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Rollo, as we have tried to point out to Fyron on many occasions this thread is NOT a mod in the normal sense of a mod. It is an attempt to gather suggestions to submit to Malfador that have a chance of being accepted in the stock game. Your comment was more in line with the objectives of the thread. Even if we ultimatly proceed with a change despite your point does not mean that the point should not be considered. Please do not leave the thread as your comments have been constructive and to the point, something that unfortunatly cannot be said for everyone here.

Geoschmo

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

Whew! With PBW down, I thought I'd read all 23 pages. I repeat, Whew!

But I do believe I have a gestalt for the whole thing now.

Most obvious, by the fine hair splitting that's been done, is that SEIV is pretty well balanced already. All it it needs is some fine tuning. There are some components/facilities that are hardly being used at all. These should be tweaked some so they will be used. Others are overused. These should be pared down ever so slightly, not too much.

For that reason, SJ, I suggest you keep your changes minimal-- if it ain't broke don't fix it-- but some things are broken or at least bent. Work on those ever so carefully. Leave the rest alone. There's a ton of good ideas for changes here, but a ton of things that have little or nothing to do with balance. The supply ideas really have nothing to do with game balance, only esthetic balance.

I say work on the things we are aren't using to make them stronger and ever so slightly tone down the ones we are overusing. That way almost everything you do will be an improvement (with almost nothing made worse) to an already well balanced game.

About the only item I haven't seen mentioned is an improvement to the organic race's medical lab. Change the pop happiness factor to +1 at level 1, +2 at level 2 and +3 at level 3. Currently it is +1 at all levels.

Kim

[ August 04, 2003, 04:24: Message edited by: Grandpa Kim ]

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

For that reason, SJ, I suggest you keep your changes minimal-- if it ain't broke don't fix it-- but some things are broken or at least bent. Work on those ever so carefully. Leave the rest alone. There's a ton of good ideas for changes here, but a ton of things that have little or nothing to do with balance. The supply ideas really have nothing to do with game balance, only esthetic balance.
Grand Pa Kim Quote I add my voice.

PDC. The majority seem to think these are too powerful vis-a-vis missiles. Suggestions include:
1. Reduce or eliminate current bonus to hit.
2. Reduce range.
3. Change reload rate to 2.
Sir Whiskers quote
Number 3 is interesting
What effect will it have?
My guess is it only helps in mass missle attackes( the missles get help)

I still thik the talisman should be made more expensive and/or Bigger

A few extra levels of armor would be a good tweak

more direct fire weapons that skip shields. Why?

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

There have been lots of players advocating reducing the to hit bonus of Point Defense Cannons. The danger of this, is you will make Fighters more powerful in the early game and nearly impossible to hit in some circumstances. Defense of a Small Fighters: 80% Base + 20% Racial Def + 10% Beserker + 10% Small ECM 1, + 20% Fleet Experience Bonus (applies if in fleet or launched from a ship in the fleet) + some range modifers. Of course reducing Training as someone suggested would help a bit.

I think the PDC bonus was made high to prevent fighters from being untouchable. With only Sensor 1, it is hard to hit fighters with standard weapons. Point Defenses are the only way to stop the buggers.

If you want to make Missles avoid point defenses better, give them 80% defense instead of 50% (or whereever they are now). I think you have to change missle defense in SETTINGS.TXT and it applies to all missles. I don't think you can specify missle defense in the COMPONENTS.TXT file.

I think one of the problems with fighters later in the game, is that you have to be able to build Larger Fighters in order to get Small ECM III on a Small Fighter. The ECM and Sensors for Fighters should not be tied to Fighter Hull technology.

Another problem with Fighters is their ECM and Sensors do not improve the same levels as the Ship counterparts do. A Ship with 20% Fleet/Ship Training and Sensor III will hit a max defense Fighter much more easily. Maybe Fighter ECM/Sensors should match ships, then you can leave Point Defense multipliers where they are and give Missles extra defense. If you do this, you probably want to reduce the Fighter Tohit bonus since their Sensors will be better. Make their Tohit bonus = 20 or 30% so that they can hit Trained ships.

Maybe Fighter EC

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

You have to make Small DUC III less powerful and also tie it to Small Weapons tech. Unless I have racial tech, I always use Small Duc III. Maybe late in the game I would consider the Small Ripper but fighters are like butter by that point. I would suggest 5, 7, and 10 as the damage Ratings for Small Duc I-III. Or make it 5KT instead of 3 KT. That would make small Meson an attractive weapon because of its small size.

Make Small Weapons Tech 20K instead of 5K.

-------------------

I made Advance Mil Sci 50K research base in a Mod of mine. That had a nice affect on the game. I am actually building Ship Training 1 because level 3 is a long ways away. That change also makes Hyperoptics harder to get, making other anti-cloak means a consideration (really helps give an advantage to Temporal and Psychic races in getting anti-cloak ability earlier than others).

[ August 04, 2003, 18:12: Message edited by: LGM ]

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

Do fighters receive racial/cultural bonuses ?
AFAIK, no. Not sure about fleet experience either.

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It was a while ago, maybe it was changed on a patch at some point, but I ran a series of test in a two player game with one system and did fighter/ship battles hot seat to see what the tohit chances were like. Fleet training was factored in as well as cultural and racial bonuses.

I was very surprised that Racial Ship Attacj and Defense bonsuses were factored in there because prior to my test, I thought the Racial Ship Combat sonsus were for ships, not units. They apply to ships and units equally.