|
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Quote:
whoa.... [/Keanu] That is the most useful thing I've heard all week. Is that in the FAQ? Slick would have said if it were in the FAQ. Slick always lets you know if it's in the FAQ. But Slick knows it, so it must be in there somewhere... |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
</font>
|
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
SJ I have asked it before, and no you do not sound angry.
Is what your saying 100% Fact ? |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Quote:
|
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Quote:
Making the combat system realtime does not change any of those facts. --- Basically what you are asking for is a slide show instead of a movie for the combat replay! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif [ May 24, 2003, 03:18: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ] |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Quote:
|
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Quote:
Quote:
tschüß KlausD |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
A "Seen ship" list, all enemy sightings this turn.
|
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Quote:
However the question was about simultaneous play. There are many good ways to implement a realtime tactical combat engine. The ideal one for me would be stepped orders. Take something like the current tactical combat, and resolve each combat turn the same sort of way that simultaneous game month turns are resolved now. EG: Order your escort to move forward 2 squares, fire missiles, then retreat 2 squares. The enemy might have orders to stay put, and fire its 0.2 reload rate meson bLaster at anything that comes in range. Once all the orders are in, hit end turn, watch the ships move and fire. After that, your escort has 2&1/2 turn left of reloading on its missile, the missile is flying through space, and your ship has been hit 3 times, with the shield regenerator I adding one hitpoint between each hit you took (5 hp/turn = 1 hp in the time it took the meson bLasters to reload ). Combat step size should be moddable, or even adjustable in combat. Set it to 5 se4-turns per step while charging towards the enemy, then down to small increments while dogfighting. |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Quote:
Quote:
[ May 25, 2003, 07:32: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ] |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Quote:
[ May 25, 2003, 18:33: Message edited by: Lisif Deoral ] |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Which is why I said they are a cruel abomination of strategy... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
|
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
How about:
1. Fighters that can be sent on missions away from their bases/carriers instead of being confined as they are? It would be nice to be able to send a swarm of fighters into a system ahead of the main fleet to soften things up before an invasion. 2. A larger playing field with more than 255 stars - say 500? 3. Neutral, non-spacefaring races, in various stages of development, that can be added to one's empire by either diplomatic persuasion or conquest? 4. Military bases on planets that troops can be stationed in without having to treat them like cargo with the appropriate room for cargo? Any invasion would have to conquer these bases before anything else? The bases should also have upgradable defenses. 5. Research modules for space stations/starbases, that would add to total research, and would/could contribute to a specific type of research if located in say, the same system as a black hole? This one could contribute research points to energy production/gravity research. 6. Power plants for space stations etc? Everything needs a power plant. Even one that could be knocked out prior to a takeover of the station. 7. The addition of cities to planets that would house the population. The more settlements/towns/cities there are, the more population on a planet. 8. One planetary government center per planet. Without which, a planetary governor cannot be appointed. This would also affect planetary population morale and stability. 9. A way to retreat from the combat screen instead of survivors being confined to the corner until oblivion occurs? I have oodles of other suggestions but they'll be held back for another time. |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
"Fighters that can be sent on missions away from their bases/carriers instead of being confined as they are? It would be nice to be able to send a swarm of fighters into a system ahead of the main fleet to soften things up before an invasion."
Apparently someone hasn't discovered the "launch fighters" button in SE4.. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Either that or you want fighters to be able to warp. |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
this had been mentioned before but still, id realy like SE to have a if/then ability to program orders/strategies/ai. this would open endless possibilities and finally give us the long-sought-after campaign possibilities.
to balance things there should be an option "normal strategies/advanced options" and the latter would have to be okayed by all players to be used at all. |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
This is my first post to this forum. YAAAY! I hope I don't screw it up. Anyway, I read through all 25 pages (3 hrs. of my life I'll never get back...) and here's my thoughts. Some are original ideas, some are expanded off of other ideas I read, and others are just some I saw and wanted to cast my "Yeah, me too!" vote on, but I completely lost track of which is which is which... And so, here they are, in ABSOLUTELY no particular order:
A peace treaty to cancel war and set current treaty to 'none'. And for that matter, treaty "packages" like trade packages to trade specific resources, perks, etc A notes tab for empires and systems so I can record latest intelligence on a system or current treaty stipulations of an empire Open-endded research! Allow mods to add/change planet types and atmosphere. I also like the moddable resources idea, as well as the idea to make all ships/stations/planets/etc. generic "objects" that can be modded themselves. More systems. Perhaps make a self-expanding galaxy. As all of the empires expand through certain thresholds, a certain number of systems are "discovered" This whole block covers sensors/scanners/cloaks. I fully support sensors have ranges. If scanners do, why shouldn't sensors? Scanners and Scanner Jammers should have levels like cloaks/sensors. If my scanner beats your jammer, I can still scan you. Also, some things should modify cloak levels. If I have a level 4 cloak, but I'm using huge energy-hogs for engines, maybe that adds a -1 modifier to my cloak. If I have a cloaking device AND stealth armor, maybe I should get a +1 bonus to my cloaking device level. Someone mentioned neutral empires that you can incorporate into yours through force, persuasion, or by them wanting to. I second this motion. Then you can really create a "United Federation of Planets" with many races, each with their own attributes, which ARE saved (second-ing that motion too). I'd like to be able to mod the turn times. I know the number of comabat turns (both space and planet) are like this, but what if I want each game-turn to represent a day rather than a month? I could set the time elapsed per turn to .2 (five days/week) and between the game turns (in the replay) to 24 (hours), with combat in simultaneous games very 6 hours, or something similar. I like the towing idea too. Perhaps tractor beams can double as tow-hooks. The vessels movement is reduced based on the size of the vessel been towed, to the point where the vessel can't move at all. more stars self-expanding galaxy? xpace facilities/stations/ships I preferred SE3's setup that let you assign your initial tech levels rather that IV's "everyone gets the same tech at the start, no matter what." You could customize you race's tech specialties before the game ever started. I also preferred their research and agree with whoever suggested SEV's be like it. Intelligence could be done the same way. I'd have to select the specifics for each project, then assign percentages. And while I'm on the subject of intelligence (my favorite part) I think you should be able to select a possible empire to frame for ANY project, just in case you happen to have it happen, rather than it being random. I'd like to be able to send more than one message to an empire per turn. I can send him a treaty offer, make the text block an "official" treaty (with stipulations like neutral and demilitarized zones, length of treaty, etc.) Then send a number of general Messages with information that crops up throughout my turn. Someone made the suggestion of people as a resource. I like this, and it can even be expanded on. Make crew required for ships, and have specialized crew. Captain can function as a bridge, XO - auxiliary control, weapons crew provides a bonus to attack (perhaps set the base attack at 80% or 90%, with weaopns crew compensating), engineering crew that can repair systems, etc. I realize that much of this can be modded in (which I'm working on). Then you can transfer an experienced crew to a new ship and scrap the old one, or train a crew at a military college before they ever set foot on a startship (perhaps not as high experience). This would also tie in with my intelligence idea. Perhaps intelligence is conducted by operatives posing as crew members. You sneak them aboard enemy ships, then they send out Messages (at the cost of a chance to be detected) intelligence regarding the location of space they are in. If you want to affect operations on a certain ship or planet, you order them (also putting them in risk of capture) to that location, which they must reach by hopping from ship to station to ship to planet, etc. Each operative is listed in the intelligence window, with a percentage of funding assigned to each to affect his performance. I like the idea of building ships component-by-component. If the spaceyards automatically assembled after all the components were complete, would everybody be happy? This would also allow you to build extra components so you can also play the role of "arms dealer". Or you could store them as cargo so your ship has a backup in case a critical system has been destroyed. Perhaps it requires an engineering team to make the replacement. Mines should be targeted at random ships, with a cap on the number per ship. That will allow mines with special damage typeds (only engines, for example) without wasting 100 mines on 1 ship. ranged boarding, so I can use transporters to beam my troops directly to an enemy ship. Additionally, a type that skips shields so I can create "phased transporters" or something similar. Also, boarding attacks should be more complex, with both teams volleying back and forth. If one side is doing well, they don't receive as many casualties (resulting in fewer boarding partys/security stations being destroyed). If the boarding is doing well, perhaps they have a chance to secure the bridge and disable the self-destruct device before it has a chance to go off. It should be possible to order ships through a warp point that hasn't opened yet, but will be soon, so I can order a ship to open a wormhole, zip though it, and close it in the same turn (Did I mention ships shouldn't lose remaining movement with stellar manipulations? At least make it component ability that can be modded) create/destroy planets/stars not instantaneous, but instead creating an instability like the special events. Using create star/planet (or a new tech: stabilize star/planet) on an existing one that has been destablized can prevent this. Or perhaps create two creates and two destoys. Based on their tech, maybe it's instantaneous, maybe it's not. Not sure about gold, but I don't think all destroyed-on-use components have that ability moddable, but are instead hardcoded. That should be revised. As for any and all people who want better, faster, more controllable tactical combat (better AI excluded), as long as there is still strategic, I don't care, but I will never use tactical combat. Ever. I am the ruler of an empire, not a ship captain. I am nowhere near the battle, and, in "reality"(?), have no knowledge of the battle until after its happend (or at very least, not accurate, up-to-date knowledge) It's the ship captains and fleet commanders who control that aspect of the empire, not me. race name should be different from empire name. What if I want to play humans, but I want my empire to be called "The Star League", not "The Human Star League"? As for everyone wanting a hexagonal grid to better deal with the hypoteneuse problem, I really don't care one way or 'tother, but this idea used in pen & paper rpgs could be used. On a square map, diagonal movement costs an extra movement point for every other movement diagonal movement that turn (1 - 2 - 1 - 2, etc) This takes care of the Pythagorean dilemma. I am a HUGE fan of ships travelling THROUGH space rather than skipping over it (hyper/warp drives vs/ warp points). While I certainly apreciate the random wormhhole every now and again, that should not be the only method of traversing the galaxy. Maybe have several different types of propulsion. Hyper/warp drive that travels at FTL speeds to other systems. These can be "piled on" to allow faster speeds even at lower tech levels. Another is jump drives. These are extremely costly in terms of supplies/light-years travelled (less so at higher levels), but provide 1-turn travel to any system if the ship pays the cost. The standard opening and closing warp points ("jump gates") can be a third option. Only one of these methods would be available to an empire at the start of the game, though it (possibly) can be traded among them. I'd like to be able to set up a perimeter around my empire. Place long range sensor buoys around it that can detect (though probably not identify) approaching ships. I'm also a big fan of a game none of you probably ever heard call Xpace made by a company called Xoftware that never Lasted long enough to complete the game, though I personally thought it showed huge promise (I think it was one of those three-guys-working-out-of-their-garage type company, though I'm not sure about it.) The propulsion system in that game was virtually identical to the one I just described. Another key element was that the emperor (YOU!) physically existed. You were located on a planet (or starship, or whatever.) While this played several minor roles (the morale of the location of the emperor increases, for example), it really played one key role: Communication. In this game, the further away you were from a ship, the longer it would take to receive information from that shiip. Communication was a technology that could be researched like any other. The higher the technology, the larger the radius ships can communicate to in a single turn. Communications relays could be used to extend that range. If enough relays were in place, I could receive a message from halfway across the galaxy in a single turn. Otherwise, it could take quite some time. Of course, if there was something you wanted to focus your attention on, you could reduce your communication lag by hopping a ship there. In that game, you needed a lot of cargo space to accomodate the emporer and his equipment/staff. In this game, you could even make it a seperate component that houses him (...wondering what that "palace" in abilities.txt is for...) Well, anyway, that's all for my. Now that everyone is thoroughly bored, I'll let you get back to your lives. I'm sure you have a lot to add... [ May 27, 2003, 04:35: Message edited by: Ares ] |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Quote:
I would rather wish that he invests his energy in making the AI better or improve the colony/economical management options in the game than riding on the current realtime wave. tschüß KlausD |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Quote:
|
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Real time or pseudo real time is really the only good way to have combat. No pure turn-based system can possibly be made that has realistic/good combat. Turn-based combat just has so many silly factors in it that it is, well, silly. Weapons need to be able to fire at the same time. You should never be able to fire every weapon you have in a "round". That makes no sense. Why should you be able to fire all your weapons before the enemy can react? Combat needs to have many, many small, incremental "phases" in order to get any degree of realism. Why not go that extra step and greatly simplify the rules by making it real time? You get the same effects, but without all the baggage of complex phase systems. Why should combat be broken up into disjoint "rounds" anyways? That is very unrealistic, and adds many other levels of silliness to the whole thing. Why can my ships only take action every (insert time frame here, such as minute)? They should be able to act at all times. A combat system where you give orders, and then watch them executed for a given time unit (such as in BOTF) (pseudo-real time combat, btw), is also silly. Is there some magical barrier preventing orders from being recieved at all but very specific time intervals? Silly, if you ask me.
And please, don't try any tired old arguments about pacing and click-festing. The simple solution of issuing orders while paused eliminates all such concerns very nicely. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif In fact, this allows you to make combat just like a BOTF-esque system, just with customizeable "turn" lengths. Win-win situation, really. A rather elegant solution for hotseat games would be to have the players agree on a time interval during which the game can be paused, with so much time that the game has to be unpaused. If both players hit the unpause button before the pause timer runs out, the game unpauses. You don't ever play hotseat (only MP game with tactical combat) with random strangers, do you? Probably not. Against just the AI, you can easily take as much time as you want, just like with Se4 tactical combat. And in other MP games, all combat is strategic, so having real time combat has no possible negative effects in such a situation. And don't say the AI making poor decisions is a negative effect of real time combat. Just go watch a strategic battle replay in se4. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Quote:
|
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Quote:
Mines with special warheads will not detonate if they cannot do any damage (eg ion mines when no engines remain on enemy ships) |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
I am a casual player of SE IV Gold. I could get at least one more player (buyer) of SEIV if we could get multi player to work easily. I bought the game based on a PC Gamer review and I do not regret it. So I told my friend about ittold him to buy it. He said let me check it out before I buy it. I told him he's a cheap *** http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif .
So I "gave" him my copy to play with. He liked it and said he would buy it if we could get multi play to work. We spent two days trying to get PBW, TCP/IP or even PB-email to work. We play alot of on-line games and have had to configure our routers and such before. But no matter what we did we could not figure out how to get multi-player to work. I thought it might be because we are using the same game on two different computers and I was going to buy another copy to verify this. But the experiance left a rough taste for him. I called him up the other day and he said he'd be up for a game if I could figure it out. What I want is easy TCP/IP play. This would include a timed turn and easy multi-player save feature. I'm going to be buying, probably, two more copies SEIV 4 Gold. |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
PBW is very easy to figure out. you might want to get some of the more experienced people to explain you how to setup games, except for that its all plain.
TCP/IP - this one is awesome but troubleful, try looking for Imperator Fyron (http://www.shrapnelgames.com/cgi-bin...3;t=009097;p=2) as he is experienced with the TCP/IP (at least AFAIK). |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Ok, here are three things I would like to see in SEV. Actually, they are features from SEIII that were not included in SEIV.
-First, Bring back the old "Armor/Outer Hull/Inner Hull" of ship design that was in SEIII. I thought this was a far more interesting ship design concept that the one in SEIV. For those who don't know what I'm talking about, the three hulls worked like this. In the Armor section, you added your main armor to this part (you could add other components too the Armor section if you redesigned them in the outside mod file). All damage was applied to the Armor section first. Then their was Outter hull and the Inner hull. You had the option of placing your components in etheir section, placing components in the Inner hull gave greater protection from incoming fire (ie, outer hull components had greater odds of getting destroyed first). The disadvantage to this was that you where only allowed to place 10% of all component space in the Armor section and only 20 (or was it 25, can't remember) in the inner hull tops. The outer hull housed the bulk of all your components with the rest (70 or 75%). This was a really neat system and with the addition of outside .txt editing files, I could see some people making some really interesting desing concepts. -Second suggestion, I would really like to see the return of ships able to leave dock even if they were not complete or damaged from a previous battle. For example, you could have a DN being constructed in a Space Yard that was going to take about 6 months to build. Now SEIII had a different way of contructing ships then in SEIV (you could actually see the components of the vessel being contructed each month as time progressed) but it was cool to be able to lauch that dreadnaught only half or 3/4 complete into battle as an emergency. Heck, in SEIII you could have several ships under construction and if an enemy attacked the ship yard, the could target the partially constructed ships in Dry Dock and try to destroy them! Very slick feature SEIII had here, and I always thought it was more realistic then the mechanism used now in SEIV where ships are just aloted time in the ship construction Q. -Third request, I would like to see the return of the old Tactical combat selector from SEIII. SEIV's is basically a copy of SEIII's, but their were some other stuff in the thrid addition that strangly where not added to SEIV (very odd). I can't remember exactly how it worked, but the interface for fleet control was much more percise where you could tell what ships you wanted to attack by "power points" (or something like that). Like for example, you could tell your fighters to engage at optimum range against the enemy's fighters only if your strength was >1.25 (if your strenght was greater then 125 percent) higher then the enemy. If was was lower, you had a secondary objective which could be "if greater then 1.25, engage capitol ships at Maximum range" etc, etc. Anwyay, its a little different then this, but if you ever get SEIII you will notice right way that the the Fleet tactical options are actually better in this Version then in SEIV in my opinion. And a forth request, bring back disengagement please! Or at least have it as an option. In SEIII, your ships where allowed to disengage a battle if it reached the edge of a map. Granted, this resulted in Colony ships for example always out racing warships and never able to catch them (this was a big problem). A way to keep this in check could be to limit a ships disengagement where you can only disengage once per Strategic Turn. That way, a persuing force could still chase the enemy even after they did a "Hit and run" engagement. Just a few suggestions I wanted to post. |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
I agree completely with Magnum357 .
This old features from SE III where very good,and it would be nice to have tham also included in SeV. |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
The SE3 Armor/Outer Hull/Inner Hull design scheme was overly simplistic, and should not be included as it was. It should be revamped to be better than how it was in SE3, with more complexity than just 3 areas.
|
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
a full mechanical and electrical, 3d workup. as long as there was a button for 'auto make'. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
|
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
"It should be revamped to be better than how it was in SE3, with more complexity than just 3 areas."
Like..? We don't need to get too overboard with the micromanagement of ship sections. |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
How about a Linux Version? Does SEIV run well under one of the Windoze emulators for Linux? Seems to me this game is ideally suited for the type of people that are Linux Users.
|
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
How about eliminating the critical 'first shot' factor in large battles? Simple to do - move and fire the ships one at a time, player A then player B. Just randomising who gets to fire ALL their weapons first was not enough in my opinion.
Eliminate any possiblity of reducing the maintenance costs, to keep fleet sizes down. Make the formations and strategies a bit more sophisticated. For example, I would normally set all ships to break formation - but I can't do this with a fleet that I want to capture a planet. Or perhaps an assault ship would hold back on unloading its entire complement of napalm bombs if the fleet is supposed to be capturing the planet, not wiping it. I personally don't care about the AI or tactical/tcpip combat, its PBW or nothing for me http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif The inner/outer/armour is interesting, in fact it seems to be lifted straight from an optional rule in the old 'Starfire' pen and paper game. In that, it quickly became a PITA because we wanted to do large battles, not translate SFB scenarios, and it was too much detail. It might work better in a computer game though... I'm sure most players would not mind spending extra time on design, and the combat calculations are automatic anyway. To see what's going on, you would want to see the damage status of a ship DURING the combat replay though. Trade bonus based on the smaller economy not the larger. Much more sensible and eliminates 'phantom economies'. Add some 'negative' special racial characteristics that would GIVE you points to spend on other stuff. - being so disgusting nobody would sign treaties with you (I've seen that somewhere else, MOO perhaps?). - specific races being unable to use specific technologies - perhaps a race of 3 mm midgets that could not have Troops, or a religious ban on using SM tech, or ethical objections to Mines.. - 10-metre sentient elephants needing double supplies and crew quarters, or races where you had to keep replacing the ship crews because they couldn't tolerate space travel.. More variation in the 'hit probability profile' of different weapons. - minimum ranges for missiles and torpedoes - weapons with massive tail-off, say 30% less likely to hit per square in range not 10% - the converse, some weapons which only decline by 5% per square or so Echo the request for either a) hexes b) 1.5 movement points to move diagonally |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Quote:
|
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Quote:
While the enemy beam weapons are incoming, your ships can launch torpedoes: only having a longer range will let you fire first, and even that dosen't guarantee you'll hit first, since torpoedoes are slower than lasers http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif [ June 02, 2003, 16:52: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ] |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
I would love to see construction queues start the next item with carry over capacity. There is so much micromanagement with creating a ship design and a scaled down Version that you can build in one or two less turns and retrofit to a full Versions, just to get the ship cost to utilize capacity as full as possible.
Retrofitting should take shipyard capacity so that retrofitting is not a loophole past the capacity limit! Weapon balance should be more carefully considered in designing the game. |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Quote:
Quote:
[ June 02, 2003, 19:07: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ] |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Quote:
Do you have SE4 Gold, or regular SE4? [ June 03, 2003, 00:47: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ] |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
I have regular SE4. I did not upgrade to Gold because (I am told) it doesn't fix any of the problems I really care about. And drones are useless apparently. I will definitely upgrade to SE5 when it comes out, or go to Gold if I run out of 1.49 opponents.. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
The situation I keep encountering is my ships blowing sub-100M pop planets out of the water, and I had thought that they were unloading all their ordnance into it.. possibly it could be that the large napalm bombs 3 are taking out too much pop in one shot? Is there a way of relating damage points to population loss so I can work it out? |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Check settings.txt for the damage to kill one population setting (I forget exactly what it is called). I do not recall what the value is. But basically, take damage done / that number and that is how much pop you can kill in each shot. Planetary Napalm III may well be able to kill those <100 M people.
What are the problems you really care about that were not fixed in Gold? Maybe they have been fixed in a recent patch and your friend is unaware of the fixes? |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
when you look at the colony window... You can sort by planet type ( ice , rock , gas.. )
|
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Quote:
Damage Points To Kill One Population:= 10 Those monster napalm bombs are going to be doing about 800 if I remember correctly, so that plus the 'overspill' from the Last WP hits is going to finish off 100M pop more often than not. Thanks. Quote:
- trade relationship values should be based on smaller economy - edge effects (don't want to rehash that one again!) - even if I accept the additive system, there is still that massive dropoff at max range - Volley fire (player A fires all, then B fires all). There's no processor-power reason to persist with that I'm sure. Alternating fire would take a lot of the luck out of big battles. These are the ones that can't be modded away or dealt with by house rules. I have a lot of issues like that, but they would be the same in 1.49 or Gold. Then there are some PITA user interface issues, like not being able to jump from ALL the lists to the planets or ships. The one-or-all fleet windows. Not being able to assign the same build to multiple queues at a time. No context menus. Non-sizable list windows in general. No option to turn off the graphics and get more items in a list. No use of high resolution screens. Can't tell a freighter to load until it is full, or a minelayer to lay up to the limit, or pre-order a freighter to pick up/drop off less than the maximum. No zoomable/scrollable galaxy map. Basically Gold doesn't give me anything extra that I think is needed. But then, I haven't kept up with the patches lately - what would you say are the main advantages of Gold? And BTW, that list looks like I hate the game, doesn't it? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif . Actually its my favourite computer game, but I think a few small fixes would make it so much better. |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
I wish you could sort the planet list by size and distance from existing colonizers. These are the attributes that I usually care the most about... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
|
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Rigelian: Gold adds a -lot- of stuff in the patches, though a lot of it is for better modding. It also fixes the stupid player order determines who shoots first thing.
"Not being able to assign the same build to multiple queues at a time" And that, if it wasn't in 1.49. Shift-click the build lists you want then click Multi Add. |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Multi add was added in 1.60 (gold). One thing it does not allow is multi adding facilities. But you can always use Fill Queues to make filling new planets a snap. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
|
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Hope the repeat order in queue to be made so that each item in the queue get built in order, top first then second and so on to the bottom. And THEN repeat it from the top again. Current repeat only does the top over and over. Its good to have but it lacks something.
|
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
That should be a separate order..
|
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Ok, the great rocks-paper-scissors strategy article by Stone Mill got me thinking about a way to improve the ai. I still think a scripting type language would be the most flexible solution for the ai, but I also realize that parsing and compilers are not everyone's specialty!
The idea is to give the AI rocks-papers-scissors capability. I think it could be implemented relatively easily even in the SEIV scheme of things. First, for each ship type, say "Light Attack Ship", in designcreation the hard code keeps stats (over the most recent 20 turns for example) on the total damage done by each weapon family to that ship type. At redesign time note the weapon to do the most damage. Then under weapons family pick for that type in designcreation you use some special family like -1 or something to indicate that ship type uses rock-paper-scissor capability. If it does, then that same ship type will be found in a rock-paper-scissors.txt file. In this file you first list the ship type then family pairs. For example, 2->6 for point defense to counter capital ship missles. If the first majority (or secondary) weapon family is the special one then it looks into the rocks-paper-scissors file with the most damaging weapon family number (say 2 CSM in this case) to find the counter weapon family number (6 point defense here). Then it uses that counter weapon family as the majority (or secondary) weapon type for this redesign period. The changes required would be to keep the statistics and parse the extra rocks-papers-scissors file (and the fun error checking between the two files). All in all, not too hard to implement, but it would greatly increases the ability of the ai to respond dynamically to situations. Also, it would still be fully moddable! |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Nice idea for the AI there.
As for the repeat build thing- I've said it before and I'll say it again: Programming-type functions for ship orders. (If/Then, Loop, Gretaer than/ less than etc, and a whole bunch of variables pulled from the game environment to pwork with) If these were implemented, it probably wouldn't be too hard to extend some similar functionality into construction queues as well: </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Build [spaceport] repeat { Build [mineral miner] } until [facilities_on_planet(mineralminer)>=4] build [robotoid factory] repeat { Build [mineral miner] } until [facilities_slots_free=0] Do { Build[fighter_design_1] } Loop</pre><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Crappy pseudocode but you get the idea. |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Just elaborating on some of the more recent ideas :
- Retrofitting - should be a job in the construction queue. It takes up manpower resources same as building a ship, right ? A simultaneous build option would also be nice. - Alternating fire - give each ship/base/satellite/fighter/platform an 'initiative rating' based on their size, speed and type. Let them move and fire in order of initiative. |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Retrofitting does use up your worker's time...
It just uses the repair crew to install replacement parts instead of the build workers. With real time combat, you will get an infinitely fine-grained initiative system. |
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Your repair crew is the absolute minimum number of people required to keep everything running. If you take on a big job like a retrofit, you hire more people or pull them off other projects. And your industry has to build the spare parts, which could have been used on a brand new ship, etc. etc. (I don't think you'd keep a spare ion engine just lying around, if you need something big like that you build it).
Regarding RT combat, I wish Malfador would go the X-Com Apocalypse way and give us both options : regular turn-based tactical or real-time tactical combat. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:48 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.