Re: Space Empires 5
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">As I edited into the previous post, only some weapons would use 'both' energy and ordinance in my original idea. The advantage of energy weapons is just that they don't need 'special' amunition but use just the ship's energy reserves. With a clear limit on the number of 'shots' you could give seekers a much better advantage in total damage inflicted.

What got me thinking of 'counting' shots though, was that missiles ought to be able to have different types of warheads. If they have different types then you'd have to be able to keep count of how many of each type you had. I guess you'd do that by using different components and just refitting a ship with a different missile component when you wanted to change it. Keeping track of individual missiles in missile magazines could be headed for that 'micromanagement hell' thing again. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Although if you really want this you can do it with drones.

Re: Space Empires 5
 

Starfire, at the height of its micromanagement (3rd Edition ISF rules before SM2), made you actually build different types of missiles, and store them in magazines on your ships, and track them getting used up in combat. It was rather like drones in SEIV now.

Re: Space Empires 5
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What you like how ships share supplies now???
I think that the ability to transfer supplies.
Maybe keep the auto-share in fleets, to avoid micro some managing. But I want to have a large transport go to the fleet carrying ammo and other supplies nad then GO BACK to the depots to pick up more without carring back a large portion of what it brought.

I also like the one type of ammo for every weapon and even or even more than one. Perhaps you can research better shells, or missiles for the cannon or missile tube you already have.

And also the idea of having supply generation have a cost and use this cost to replace current manteinance cost. A ship could be expensive to build but cheap to mantain or viceversa.

[ July 12, 2002, 23:19: Message edited by: Andr&eacutes Lescano ]

Re: Space Empires 5
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Take the idea of splitting supplies into Energy and Ordinance one step further -- perhaps repairing damaged components takes from the generic pool of Ordinance (said now also representing spare parts, as well as just bullets*) ... ? Might make establishing forward -bases- more important, especially in High tech games (instead of just slappign a Repair Bay III on every warship design, heh).

It would also help if SE5 tracked partial damage from one turn to the next -- then, lack of Ordinance-supplies could cause slow, progressive damage to all components that have to go without (in reverse order to your repair priorities, IOW, whatever you thinkis most important to fix, will be the Last thing to wear out for lack fo spare parts). So, no, your engines wouldn't stop working because you lacked spare parts ... but they will eventually break if you don't resupply the ship soon.

An increased need for spare parts based on higher and higher technology base could also provide a reason for building ships with "obsolete" technology -- you may be able to build better, but the "old-tech" stuff is FAR easier to keep in good repair "nowadays" ...

You'd also want to consider splitting the Supply storage component into "Magazine" and "Batteries" components. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Space Empires 5
 

I thought we already talked about Ordinance in that Micro/Macrodrone thread.

Re: Space Empires 5
 

And I thought the Last time it was discussed, somebody pointed out the difference between ordnance ( = military ammunition) and ordinance ( = governmental law).

Re: Space Empires 5
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hey, who needs WMGs when you have red tape? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: Space Empires 5
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yikes http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif Sorry 'bout that guys -- shoulda checked the dictionary before typing. Is military ammunition pronounced ORD-NANCE or is it still pronounced ORD-IN-ANCE despite the spelling?

Re: Space Empires 5
 

Okay, under the heading of Space Empires 5 -- that is, new code changes that alter the game from SE4 --&gt; SE5 the same way game play was altered from SE3 --&gt; SE4.

In SE4 we have asteroids which are convertible to planets of random type and atmosphere. How about in SE5 we have rocky asteroid fields, icy cometary debris(is that what's meant by ort clouds?) and storms made mostly of ionized gasses.

We would have individual components for condensing each into planets -- asteroids to rock, comets to ice, storms to gas giants. So you know what you're going to get, and what not to bother with.

Under the heading of Oh No, how about a switch to allow different planet types to have significantly different relative amounts of resources: rock planets are mineral rich, ice planets have lots of extractable organic building blocks frozen in them, gas giants are very rich in radioactives, but each type would be lacking in the others.

The result would be that people would have to remote mine, and defend their remote miners or trade with each other heavily. If by chance a gas giant race found one of the rare gas giants that was 80 % minerals -- they would have to hold that planet at all costs if they wanted to build ships at all. This would be cruel to the newbies, but some experts would like the challenge of overcoming the handicap.

Oh, and lets lose this asteroids with 200%+ resources. Maybe it's needed for remote mining to be usefull, but when it becomes a planet, re-roll the stats or decrement them by some amount. I don't see why we need this at all -- no one seems to have jumped on re-writing the AI to take advantage of this. Maybe remote mining should produce more or decrease the value less rapidly instead.

[ July 13, 2002, 13:34: Message edited by: Arkcon ]

Re: Space Empires 5
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I like that idea, actually. And frankly, any planet you -make-, should have your own atmosphere ... after all, if you breathe Hydrogen, why would you BOTHER making an Oxygen-atmosphere world ... ?

And I'd like to see an expanded range of atmosphere types. 8)

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">A good way to do this is, not to make (say) all Gas Giants poor in minerals, period. Make them poorer in minerals than in radioactives. The maximums are now, what, 250%/250%/250% ... ? Change it to be 150%/150%/300% for gas giants, 150%/300%/150% for Ice worlds, and 300%/150%/150% for Rock worlds. That -would- be entertaining, IMO.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually, 200% resources for asteroids isn't bad. If we go with Rock planets having a maximum of 300%/150%/150%, then rocky asteroids should have the same; after all, how can you build a 200%-mineral planet, out of 2%-mineral asteroids ... ? Besides, with the possibility of again being able to colonise asteroids ... it might be possible also, for Asteroids to be your HOME PLANET TYPE. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif