|
Re: Babylon 5 Mod
So all this mod needs is new AI research files, AI design creation files and a more AI friendly facility file. It might be a good idea to concentrate initially on the races that have the most in common. I don’t think that the ships of any race need to be bigger then any other, just make the components better this way the math stays the same. I also think it would be better to make the components the way you want them to be. Its much easier to delete a component that doesn’t work then add new ones. The Last patch has made making good AI design creation files a lot easier. I have not played this mod so I don’t know how good or bad the AI files are. Would it be possible for someone to upload a txt only Version of this mod. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
|
Re: Babylon 5 Mod
A thought or two from me based on my feeble attempts Last year:
The weapons are not optimal (as ya'll already know). Either the ship sizes are not the best or weapon mounts or sizes are not synched optimally. Then there is the question of damage and range on some of the weapons. I think the systematic approach Timstone and Grumbler will, in the end, make a much better MOD. I also agree with Timstone (hopefully B5 fanboys won't blow a gasket) in that the MOD should NOT be 100% "canon". DO keep as much of the "canon" stuff as you can. Speaking of AIC MOD...take a look at how JLS has set the AI up in there. MIGHT be worth using his setup. Edit: typos...argh [ March 13, 2004, 21:36: Message edited by: pathfinder ] |
Re: Babylon 5 Mod
Hah, Da Path has returned! Good to see you again.
Okay, Grumbler and I have combined forces. We yet have to divide the workload. I think I'll be doing much of the weapons stuff and he'll dive headfirst into the AI stuff. We also have to make a workingscheme of some sort. Because we also ha a real life, we have to earn a living, so we can't be modding all the time. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif Untill we have decided on a firm basis and are confident we can give work to other, we will ask it in this wonderful thread. I didn't mean disrespect to anyone when I said we must be confident to give work to others. It's just a little risk of having too many people working on a mod. That way the whole balance can come in danger. Just sit tight and wait for those exciting Messages from Grumbler or me. It's good to read so much support and interest for this mod. Keep it up! Edit: Typo's!! I'm sure there are more... [ March 13, 2004, 17:36: Message edited by: Timstone ] |
Re: Babylon 5 Mod
TNZ: These are the txt data files. Are these what you wanted? or each individual race AI files?
1055128545.zip There is NOT a place to upload them here anymore http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif The AI research files (IMHO) aren't too bad but the AI designcreation files most definitely could use tweaking. More important are the "make-up" of the facilties and the components. So that the AI can make "intelligent" setups of its various ships/fighters, etc. Examples: Why do the Shadows AI always place two living cpu's onboard ALL ships when there is a restriction to having only 1? Why does the AI around mid-game start shoving cargo pods into spaces instead of armor? or weapons? Why does the AI substitute trading Posts for manufacturing faciltities? [ March 13, 2004, 22:21: Message edited by: pathfinder ] |
Re: Babylon 5 Mod
In my continuing quest for Bab5 for SEIV Gold :Where in this or any other thread can I pick up the Bab5 AI files (Gold compatible)?
[ March 13, 2004, 23:49: Message edited by: solops ] |
Re: Babylon 5 Mod
Solops: Look in this thread:
http://www.shrapnelgames.com/cgi-bin...0;t=000001;p=3 scattered I know but I do not have the time to search and post the specific spots. |
Re: Babylon 5 Mod
Here is my proposal for the AI_Design_Creation standard. Note that the goal here is to get effective ships designs in a file that is easy to playtest. After we are sure the “stock” AI_D_C is working, specialized AI_D_Cs can be prepared or the races by simply modifying the stock A_D_C. The specialized AI_D_Cs will be needed for such things as stealth components.
In this post I will just talk about warships. Other ship types can be dealt with similarly if everyone likes this approach. Warships are considered to belong to one of four different size categories, each with three subdivisions which determine the types of components installed. The four major categories are: 1. Escorts: Escort (150kt), Corvette (200kt), **** 2. Destroyers: Frigate *(300kt), Destroyer*(350kt) Heavy Destroyer*(400kt) 3. Cruisers: Light Cruiser*(500kt), Cruiser* (600kt), Heavy Cruiser* (700kt) 4. Capital Ships: Battlecruiser* (800kt), Battleship**(900kt), Heavy Battleship*(1000kt) 5. Massive Ships: ****, Dreadnought*(1200kt), Heavy Dreadnought (1400kt) * renamed ship ** renamed ship, new size **** no ship in this Category (as there would be no rational reason to design such) Within each Category, the subdivisions are equipped as follows: 1. Lightest ship: main (and secondary) weapons only 2. “Standard ship” main (and secondary) weapons plus PDF 3. “Heavy Ship” main (and secondary) weapons, PDF, and more armor. Each Category of ship (cruisers and above) will have its own weapons mount. Larger ships will have more effective weapons with a given tonnage allocated. Smaller ships will retain the current defensive bonuses. Each Category (cruisers and above) will require an additional crew space and life support. Each succeeding Category will have a larger reactor size and each reactor size will be enough to power 120% of the ships engines required for the Category’s largest ship (much as it is now, but with the reactors “rationalized” a bit). Larger ships will also have additional components like scanners and such. Speeds: Warships will have the same “standard speed” regardless of size. While it might seem kinda cool to have battleships, for instance, be slower than destroyers, the computer doesn’t pay much attention to speeds when it creates fleets, and different speeds for different sizes will result in AI fleets being slower than they need be. Also, ships with different speeds tend to result in worse fleet performance in strategic combat. Effective ship speeds by engine tech (ignoring such things as Ship enhancement): 1. Fission drive: 4 2. Fusion drive: 6 3. Anti-matter drives: 9 4. Gravimetric: 12 My idea is that these speeds should be achievable using 40% of the hull size for any given ship. Scouts will "cheat" a bit by having no requirements for LS or CC due to small crew size for the hull. Now, how is the “generic AI_D_C” gonna work? It is really pretty straightforward. Each ship will have 5 main weapons family choices (ships larger than destroyers having secondary weapons as well), and, where appropriate, 5 PD weapons family choices. These will be numbered as follows: 21001-21005 PD weapons 22001-22005 First through fifth main weapons for escorts Category 23001-23005 First through fifth main weapons for destroyers Category 24001-24005 First through fifth main weapons for cruisers Category 25001-25005 First through fifth main weapons for capital ships Category 26001-26005 First through fifth main weapons for Massive ships Category Now, the key is that for, say, the Minbari, weapon 25001 might be a Neutron Laser, while for the EA it might be a Trans-Phased Plasma Cannon and the Shadows would have the Heavy Molecular Slicer Beam. So long as no race has more than one choice for 25001 (or whatever), this seems to work out in testing. Secondary weapons for the larger ships would logically just be the primary weapons from the destroyers Category, though we can add more families if this doesn’t make sense. It is entirely possible that 24001 and 25001 (or 25001 and 26001) will end up being the same weapon in different mounts, in which case we might not need all the families listed above. Not having the B5 wars books, I am unsure as to how much differentiation they have between the types of ships. I would expect the xx004 and xx005 to be the general weapons. Thus early designs will all tend to look the same (unless we want to do away with general weapons entirely?) Any thought on this approach? It is more “generic” than we will probably want to end up with, but at least it will get us started and will allow us to chase down the AI gremlins a bit faster. |
Re: Babylon 5 Mod
Grumbler: Looks like a good plan...I especially like the idea of one main weapon type. This will simply things a lot and keep the AI from choking on having too many weapon choices. One comment: Keep generic or general weapons as not all the races have race-specific weapons. Unless this MOD is to only have the "primary" series races.
[ March 14, 2004, 22:45: Message edited by: pathfinder ] |
Re: Babylon 5 Mod
I like your ideas for standardizing the making of the AI design creation files. I would, however, suggest that the ship sizes be a 100kt bigger so that the smaller ships are easier to design for the AI. It should be possible to get a ship’s engines to take up 40% of its hull size by using mounts for the engines. e.g. a escort ship(250kt)would have four engines with a tonnage space taken of 25kt each, a heavy dreadnought ship(1500kt)would have four engines with a tonnage space taken of 150kt each. It is also possible to increase the cost of the engines and their supply usage. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
|
Re: Babylon 5 Mod
I think what Grumbler, is saying is that each race will have up to five main weapons and five secondary weapons just, the way the AI likes it. Because all races use racial area technology for their weapon technologies, you can use the same weapon family numbers in your AI design creation files.
Might it not be a good idea to use weapon mounts to achieve the Category changes of the weapons? 22001-22005 First through fifth main weapons for escorts Category 23001-23005 First through fifth main weapons for destroyers Category 24001-24005 First through fifth main weapons for cruisers Category 25001-25005 First through fifth main weapons for capital ships Category 26001-26005 First through fifth main weapons for Massive ships Category |
Re: Babylon 5 Mod
Grumbler: Could you send me some info about your engine mod? You wanted to implement it into the mod. Well, let me have a look at it. You've made me curious.
About weapon mounts: Don't use them yet, they confuse the AI. More thing that could go wrong. Include them as eyecandy for the human players. [ March 15, 2004, 09:39: Message edited by: Timstone ] |
Re: Babylon 5 Mod
Just testing my new sig.
1st edit: Not quite. 2nd edit: Maybe this? 3rd edit: Getting tired of this! 4th edit: Sigh... 5th edit: Keep your fingers crossed! 6th edit: getting closer. 7th edit: Failed... again. [ March 15, 2004, 13:53: Message edited by: Timstone ] |
Re: Babylon 5 Mod
TNZ, have you actually gotten the system to use mounts for engines? I have never been able to pull that off. If you have, tell me how you did it.
The problem with using the mounts to differentiate between weapons (something I propose a year ago) is that in this game system the larger weapons tend to be slower-firing as well as longer-ranged and higher-damaging. Mounts do away with that. You want to use mounts to make satellites better with a given weapon, for instance, but since "we ain't afeered of large component files" they aren't needed for ships. Tim, I will shoot you a copy of the engines mod. I need to update them for the Ancients a bit, as I have left the Ancients stictly alone up to this point. |
Re: Babylon 5 Mod
Anyone have any strong feelings about the x50kt hulls? If we got rid of them we could make the QNP ration 1 per 100 tons and big ships (over 1200kt) won't be limited by the 256 engine limit... we could go out to 2500 tons and still have speed-12 ships (with some movement bonus effects, of course).
|
Re: Babylon 5 Mod
Try looking in this topic newton propulsion system idea for STM.
http://www.shrapnelgames.com/cgi-bin...;f=23;t=011058 Here is a small example of what this mount might look like if used in the B5M. All engine components would be 500kt without the mount being used. Also, the AI would be told to use only four engines. Long Name := Engine Installation1 Short Name := Engine Installation Description := Installation mount for a ship engines. Code := E+ Cost Percent := 100 Tonnage Percent := 4 Tonnage Structure Percent := 100 Damage Percent := 100 Supply Percent := 100 Range Modifier := 0 Weapon To Hit Modifier := 0 Vehicle Size Minimum := 200 Vehicle Size Maximum := 200 Weapon Type Requirement := None Comp Family Requirement := 11400,11401,11402,11403 Vehicle Type := Ship Long Name := Engine Installation2 Short Name := Engine Installation Description := Installation mount for a ship engines. Code := E+ Cost Percent := 100 Tonnage Percent := 5 Tonnage Structure Percent := 100 Damage Percent := 100 Supply Percent := 100 Range Modifier := 0 Weapon To Hit Modifier := 0 Vehicle Size Minimum := 250 Vehicle Size Maximum := 250 Weapon Type Requirement := None Comp Family Requirement := 11400,11401,11402,11403 Vehicle Type := Ship [ March 16, 2004, 04:43: Message edited by: TNZ ] |
Re: Babylon 5 Mod
Why is it you want mount based QNP anyways?
Just use the spaces per one entry in the ship designs (put the engines first), and presto, you're set. |
Re: Babylon 5 Mod
movement rating based QNP doesn't work past 255.
|
Re: Babylon 5 Mod
What the little mousie said: trust me....the ship engine bit caused untold problems due to setup in one of the data files until I messed with them. As is they at least work. Otherwise too many RCE's after certain size ships were researched (also there was something in the engine Ratings that coupled with sship size caused and out of bounds error in the game engine). Gold solved a good bit of this also.
|
Re: Babylon 5 Mod
Well, my only reason for suggesting the use of a mount based QNP system for the B5M is that I had the silly idea that we might actually want a propulsion system that the AI can use to perfection instead of one it barely tolerate.
|
Re: Babylon 5 Mod
Okay, just call me stupid, but 50% of this conversation eludes me. But that's alright. Please continue it, it can only be good for The Mod.
How do you all feel if we implement the FQM in The Mod? I also wanted to use the Image Mod and the Formations Mod. Objections anyone? |
Re: Babylon 5 Mod
Well, if the new Version of the mod is going to be Gold, just assign an AI Ability Tag to each class of engine, and call for those instead of the movement points. No more need to worry about how the AI will design this ship with a different level of propulsion tech. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
Adding USM to the mod would be a great idea. |
Re: Babylon 5 Mod
I noticed that in the Version of the mod I have the AI would stop adding engines to its AI design creation at a certain point. I think I found the problem. It was the Jump Gate components. When I deleted them the AI started adding engines. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
|
Re: Babylon 5 Mod
I think is would be a good idea to standardize the sizes of the components. Also I would suggest rounding the sizes of the components to the nearest 5kt.
|
Re: Babylon 5 Mod
Rounding up or rounding down all the weights to the nearest 5 kT isn't a bad idea, but I won't do that for the weapons. They are just a bit too standard then. And diversity is one of the things we want, so no rounding up or down for the weapons.'But for components isn't it a problem. Let's hear/read what Grumbler has to say about it.
|
Re: Babylon 5 Mod
Could someone do something for me? I need 5 reactor pics to be redone. There are 4 series of 5 reactor pics (example: Comp_673.bmp, Comp_674.bmp, Comp_675.bmp, Comp_676.bmp and Comp_677.bmp). I want those 5 redone. All the yellow spots need to be red. The kind of red you see in Hyperspace.
In the B5 War Books I read quite a bit about the Hyperspace Taps. I decided to inmplement these too. Could anyone do this please? |
Re: Babylon 5 Mod
TNZ, I am missing something here. What keeps the ignorant player from using the wrong mount for his engines? I agree that this idea seems a pretty good one for the AI (which is the hardest bit) and simplifies the AI_D_C (especially using the abilities tag as IF noted).
It may even be better than my 40kt engine mod (devised because I HATE calculating how much supply 24 5 kt fusion engines would use to move 6 sectors! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif ) as it is infinately more flexible and doesn't get into the rounding problem of the x50kt hull sizes. However, I will have to think through the human player issue to satisfy myself that it is a non-issue. On the rounding of components, I agree, but would point out that this is already the case except for a few races like the Gaim who get a bit more armor right now because their CC and LS components are 8 vice 10 in size (and maybe their bridge is, too). Weapons rounding could be done (and power simply improved) but there seems little utility to it from either the AI standpoint or the human standpoint, as you always end up filling the excess space with armor. Lots of good thinking here, and I am glad to see some interest revive in the mod. My school is on spring break starting tomorrow, and I hope to finish the ship requirements analysis and look at the engine mount idea in the next coupla days. That will allow tim some time over the weekend to look at how the weapons might be modelled, and we can start production on the AI_D_C and components for maybe the five "major B5 races" (including the LNAW but not the Vorlons). Is everyone happy with the basic thrust of the weapons paths for each of the major races? If not, now is the time to say so! |
Re: Babylon 5 Mod
Don't round off the armor sizes, either. They're small and the details matter a lot.
|
Re: Babylon 5 Mod
The size standardization of weapons components that have the same weapon family number and of components that have the same family number is quite important for effective AI and player ship upgrading. Just try designing an Earth Alliance ship with level one heavy laser/pulse arrays. Now try upgrading your design. But how, or if, you standardize your components is up to you.
Its impossible with this system to use the wrong mount for your engines; there is only one mount available to players. Have a look at this topic: http://www.shrapnelgames.com/cgi-bin...;f=23;t=011058 http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif |
Re: Babylon 5 Mod
I was looking at the Earth Alliance’s Anti-Missile Missile and RF Anti-Missile Missile components and I had this idea:
http://www.shrapnelgames.com/cgi-bin...;f=23;t=011274 This way we can have the same number of weapon components, with a way less complicated ship designing window. |
Re: Babylon 5 Mod
Whatever happened to VAL?
|
Re: Babylon 5 Mod
Quote:
|
Re: Babylon 5 Mod
After thanksgiving 2002 I got one Last message from Val. He said he had planned a vacation. After his vacation he would continue work on The Mod at a more regular basis. At that rate he expected to finish The Mod at the end of 2003.
Too bed we haven't heard of him since. I wonder how he sees the whole continuation of The Mod? Speaking of missing persons. Where did Hadrian Aventine go?! Has anyone heard something of him lately? Edit: I vote against the LNAW, because they would just be a compilation of the races that make up the LNAW. They would be a pain in the butt to make and to fight against (too many advantages). I'm almost done with the way how the new weapons will look in 2.0. The Last thing I must do is coming up with rules for the targets and the vehicles the weapons can target/be mounted on. This little problem should be finished before the end of this weekend. If I can't compile it clear enough I'll keep the files on my computer and distribute them when they are nicely compiled and easy to use. Edit2: How about the reactor pics I asked about? Could anyone do this for me please? [ March 18, 2004, 11:17: Message edited by: Timstone ] |
Re: Babylon 5 Mod
TNZ, I just realized that I still had a very old CompEnhancement.txt that lacked mention of "Vehicle Size Maximum (Optional)." With max size, of course, the problem goes away. Sorry for the confusion. I guess I need to check all my files to ensure they reflect the latest Version (there have been so many partial changes).
Given that my concerns were based on faulty data, this seems like the way to go. I will experiment with this over the next day or so, and make sure that it behaves as expected with minimal change to AI_D_C. |
Re: Babylon 5 Mod
Quote:
I can see the desire to simplify the design screen, but won't AMM 5 replace RFAMM 4 in the design window when you have both available? That would mean having to turn of "show only latest" todesign a ship with RFAMM 4, which is superior to AMM 5. In any case, as I say, I am dubious of the utility of anti-seeker-seekers (and no jokes about us pulling our heads out of our ASSes, either! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif ) Better to just drop the concept, IMO. That will simpify design considerably. Note that I am also not convinced that the whole RF missile concept isn't too unbalancing. The EA seems to me to have way too many uberweapons. [edit: typos] [ March 18, 2004, 15:48: Message edited by: grumbler ] |
Re: Babylon 5 Mod
Quick Fix:
ECM and Combat Sensors: These were altered from my original specifications without my knowledge. While it was probably done with good intentions, the original specs were quite intentional. All three types of ECM components and CS components should be 10kt in size. NOT 10kt / 5kt / 2-3kt The point is to have diminishing returns, and by scaling the extra components down, they all have the same effect/kt ratio at equivalent tech levels. |
Re: Babylon 5 Mod
Grumbler, I had the same concern about short-ranged anti-seeker seekers. However, on testing them in combat I found they worked just like any other point-defense weapon. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
Re your question about AMM 5 replacing RFAMM 4 in the design window when you have both available? Take a closer look at the technology requirements of the AMM and RFAMM. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Name := Anti-Missile Missile I Number of Tech Req := 3 Tech Area Req 1 := Ballistic Weapons Tech Level Req 1 := 1 Tech Area Req 2 := Earth Alliance Heavy Weapons Tech Level Req 2 := 1 Tech Area Req 3 := Point-Defense Weapons Tech Level Req 3 := 1 Number of Abilities := 1 Name := RF Anti-Missile Missile II Number of Tech Req := 3 Tech Area Req 1 := EA Advanced Ballistic Weapons Tech Level Req 1 := 1 Tech Area Req 2 := Earth Alliance Heavy Weapons Tech Level Req 2 := 1 Tech Area Req 3 := Point-Defense Weapons Tech Level Req 3 := 1 Number of Abilities := 1 |
Re: Babylon 5 Mod
Here is an idea I had for using the vehicle size file’s “Requirement Min Life Support”. It might be of some use to the B5M. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
How To Make Engineering Components. 1. Make engineering component for ships. 2. Make engineering component for bases. 3. Add the two engineering components to the data file. Replace life support with the ship engineering component and replaces auxiliary control with the base engineering component. 4. Delete master computer component. 5. Set life support requirement in vehicle size data file to 1. The AI will use the engineering component to fill its requirement for life support. It is possible to add more abilities to the component but only if the abilities are not targeted by the design creation files. New abilities could be supply storage and shield regeneration. Ship and Base Engineering Component Provided. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/newup...1058395439.txt [ March 19, 2004, 02:17: Message edited by: TNZ ] |
Re: Babylon 5 Mod
Why not just use the TAG abilities, and give the AI a "must have" ability of that.
|
Re: Babylon 5 Mod
I think the ECM and Combat Sensors components need a bit more than a quick fix, more like a major overhaul, that is, if you want truly AI compliant ECM and Combat Sensors components. In my opinion, using AI Tags to get the AI to use the current ECM and Combat Sensors components would be a waste of time and AI tags. How about one component family with the “Combat To Hit Defense Plus” ability and one component family with the “Combat To Hit Offense Plus ability”.
|
Re: Babylon 5 Mod
Grumbler and Timstone, I thought the mod could do with a more robust leaking armor system, so I made one. It seems to work well. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
|
Re: Babylon 5 Mod
Quote:
Its happened before on other forums, long time hard core members just stop posting and eventually it was discovered that they are no longer alive. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif One can't help but wonder if Val is still around or not. |
Re: Babylon 5 Mod
Quote:
Quote:
[ March 20, 2004, 04:52: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ] |
Re: Babylon 5 Mod
I noticed that in the Version of the mod I have the AI would stop adding engines to its AI design creation at a certain point. I think I found the problem. It was the Jump Gate components. When I deleted them the AI started adding engines. I think that the Jump Gate component’s 50 “Standard Ship Movement” point ability is causing the AI problem. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
|
Re: Babylon 5 Mod
As said in the other thread... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif AI tags will get around the jump gate issue nicely.
|
Re: Babylon 5 Mod
Quote:
The point of having three families is that you can boost your ECM/CS just a bit more by devoting a bunch of extra space to it. Some ships might just go with the basic component, since they need the hull space for other things... If you want the very pinnacle of ECM or CS power, though, you have to pay for it with extra space on your ship. |
Re: Babylon 5 Mod
I concur. Please leave the CS/ECM alone, other than to make them all 10 kT...
|
Re: Babylon 5 Mod
Here is my proposal for the ECM/CS Components:
http://www.shrapnelgames.com/cgi-bin...&f=23&t=011274 |
Re: Babylon 5 Mod
That completely destroys the current system.
|
Re: Babylon 5 Mod
Anyone know why shipboard telepath has sensor level as an ability?
|
Re: Babylon 5 Mod
So that it can detect cloaked shadow vessels. Not that there is a shadow cloaking device... :-\
|
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:13 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.