SEV discussion: Mines
 

its prety much agreed that the current seiv mines are not the greatest. how do you think they should work?

a copple of things I have seen thown around in other threads are:

1) mine decay rate - personaly I dont like this idea, I would rather see mines become obsolite than just dissapear.

2) mines should dammage ships in a fleet randomly instead of one afer annother - yup, I like this.

3) different types of mine component - this could be interesting, mines that only take out engines, shields, etc.

here is an idea I would like to propse:
mine fields that can be orderd to dettonate on all empires, only enemy empires, or enemy empires + empires X, and Z. this could be usefull for protecting those home systems especialy good for the more xenofobic races.

Re: SEV discussion: Mines
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I wouldn't mind seeing a system such as this. Stars! had it and I liked it.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I like this idea as well.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">This would be interesting to see as well.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I really like that idea. That is something I thought should be in the game for along time.

Another thing I would like to see is that you have X% chance to navigate through a minefield. Then either a component could be made to better your chances by providing more expierienced pilots or navigation crew; or each time you successfully fly through a mine field without taking much damage you could gain expierience in this regard and have better chances of successfully navigating mine fields in the future.

Re: SEV discussion: Mines
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">This is entirely possible now. Mods such as Adamant and Pirates and Nomads have many choices for warhead types to put on your ships. Seeing it make it into the stock game for SEV would be cool. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: SEV discussion: Mines
 

IMO Mines should act as following.

Mines should have and X% chance of hitting. The percentage to be determined by game settings and perhaps components on mines.

Mines should force a fleet to stop when entering the sector.

Mines should attempet to detonate again when exiting the sector unless exiting through the same sector as the one entered.

If any ships have a sweeper component it should attempt detection of all mines. Any mines detected will not attempt detonation. The sweeper will then sweep the number of detected mines it is capable off. Any undetected mines will then attempt detonation. Any attempt on the following turn to exit the sector, other than the one entered will cause all mines to attempt detonation.

Re: SEV discussion: Mines
 

I would like to see a leaky minefield. Maybe only a double chance to hit a mine. An example would be one mine you have a 2% chance to hit it, 10 mines gives you a 20% chance to hit. 50-100 mines mean you always hit.

MineSweepers could have a similar (or increased)chance to clean fields. For a double exploding chance... If there are 25 mines or more you will always sweep some, but you only have a 4% chance to get that Last little pesky one.

This also looks like a perfect variable to mod. Leaving it at 100 times the number of mines will cause every mine to always explode, about the same as current.

Also as a "Bad" race characteristic (from another thread) you could have "We Don't drive straight" (or something) that causes the multiple to be increased.

Fleet/ship experience could modify the chance. There could be a fleet formation like "Follow the leader" that would allow all ships to take the same chance, while setting them up for defenders to attack, or a wall formation (like now) that is close to Farragut's (a past US Admiral) way of saying "Damm the Torpedos Full Speed Ahead".

A lot of ideas, but I think it would fit SEV nicely.

Re: SEV discussion: Mines
 

Its interesting - the leaky minefields and the bad traits are ideas to play with.

The dumb, slightly smart (limited manoveourability) and perhaps cloak mines (you can lay em keep em cloaked until you see a enemy decloak - they would still be invisible to an emeny until they stumble across a field) but while cloaked sweepers couldnt detect them (a good way to explore a system) leave a minefield cloaked until say you get attacked or if you are in a withdrawl and leave it 5 turns then decloak and wait for the first enemy to stumble across.

Defensive tech for sweepers would be a tech called - mine sweeping (cloaking mines) to uncover them ? and then variuos levels that way

Re: SEV discussion: Mines
 

You beat me to it, http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif but the same idea. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

I really like this thought as well, but maybe only if at least one explodes.

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

Re: SEV discussion: Mines
 

Yep you could put a limit on the size of the fleet to stop or other % factors that could influence it ?

Re: SEV discussion: Mines
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana"></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Even better http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: SEV discussion: Mines
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">This is entirely possible now. Mods such as Adamant and Pirates and Nomads have many choices for warhead types to put on your ships. Seeing it make it into the stock game for SEV would be cool. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">And now that I think more about it, this was possible in SE3 as well... my SE3 mod had different types of mines... Hopefully we can convince Aaron to add these to the stock game for SE5 finally! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: SEV discussion: Mines
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I dont know, I think that a mine should attempt detonation even if it is detected. however a detected mine should have less chance of hitting the ship than an undetected mine (the ship knows it is there and trys to avoid it)

also what if the size of the ships effected the to hit chance? that might be annother way of keeping the smaller ship sizes all throuhg the game.

Re: SEV discussion: Mines
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I dont know, I think that a mine should attempt detonation even if it is detected. however a detected mine should have less chance of hitting the ship than an undetected mine (the ship knows it is there and trys to avoid it)

also what if the size of the ships effected the to hit chance? that might be annother way of keeping the smaller ship sizes all throuhg the game. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Perhaps but the main point I think is that if a fleet is capable of detecting mines it is not going to plow through a minefield after just sweeping what it can. It would stop I think.

Re: SEV discussion: Mines
 

ok, I think I see what your saying.

if a mine attempts to destroy/damage a ship and fails does the mine still exist? or has it destroyed itself in the attempt?

Re: SEV discussion: Mines
 

I would keep the part where a ship running into an unknown minefield doesn't get to raise shields before the hits come in, but change the mechanics so that ships going into a known minefield should be able to raise shields.

Re: SEV discussion: Mines
 

Features adding strategic options is cool, but features that justs adds micromanagement (like the decaying field) is not cool.

Whatever Aaron chooses for plain SEV, I hope he don't forget its a game, not a simulator http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Of course, I don't mind him keeping as many options as possible available for the modders. I can always choose not to play their mods.

Re: SEV discussion: Mines
 

Decaying units of any sort is no fun. I am with Primitive on this one. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Stars! had a lot of horrible features that just drove up the micromanagement without making the game any more fun. Sure, they were realistic, but ALWAYS gameplay over realism. And that is not a blanket statement I have problems making. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Re: SEV discussion: Mines
 

Here is an idea for a mine engine:

You take the number of mines in the minefield and place them in a "x-y grid" based on some setting in a data file. Say approx. 25% of the sectors are occupied with mines by default.

The ships that enter the minefield each have a random path through the grid. If they hit a mine then they take damage, if they make it through then great.

Of course, this would be a cpu process and not an actual graphic sequence in the game.

Re: SEV discussion: Mines
 

I think mines should slow your ships down based on the denisty... ( due to sweeping ) and if you wish to plow though damage will happen.

So you could set your minimal sweep for the fleet / ships and say you say sweep 50 mines a movement and the minefield had 100 mines it would take 2 movement points to sweep it.. If it had a 1000 mines then it would take a while longer...

If your fleet is cloaked then the sweepers would be halfed... Uncloaked to sweep sucks...

Cloaking is bad as it is... this just ruins it.

I would also like to see differnent styles of mines... Yea STars had a good minesystem... it was good but not quite there.

Re: SEV discussion: Mines
 

what was missing from stars!'s mining system?

Re: SEV discussion: Mines
 

Not having the pointless micromanagement of having to continuously replaced degraded fields for one. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: SEV discussion: Mines
 

What did you think of my suggestion (3 Posts down) for a mine system? I think that could work well or some variation of that idea.

Re: SEV discussion: Mines
 

what micromanagement? you just leave the miner's running.

well, sounds good Kwok.

[ January 27, 2004, 00:53: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

Re: SEV discussion: Mines
 

Building new mines, having to continue them running... sillyness.

Re: SEV discussion: Mines
 

There needs to be more discussion on mining and mines - perhaps mines in the minefields ?

Re: SEV discussion: Mines
 

I like decaying fields- but then I'm a micromanagemment freak. Then again, you could just setup a yard somewhere to repeat build mines and a ship to repeat load/launch them. Not much micromanagement there, except that you get troubles with ships cancelling their orders because the yard has run out of stock or something...

Of course I'd also like to see better order queueing and repeating in the game as well, which would help matters immensely: Imagine if you could give a ship the following orders:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">-Wait at location X.
-UNTIL (minefield A&lt;50 mines) OR (minefield B&lt;75 mines)
-IF (minefield A&lt;50 mines)
--Goto location Y
--Load mines
--launch mines at minefield A
--Return to location X
-Endif
-IF (minefield B&lt;75 mines)
--Goto location Z
--Load mines
--launch mines at minefield B
--Return to location X
-Endif
-Repeat orders</pre><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Or maybe even a (reliable) minefield minister could be introduced to deal with it for you. Or a "maintain minefield" button that allows you to assign a ship to a field or group of fields, and it will go off and do its own thing according to settings you specify. Micromanagement is a good thing as long as you have the option to delegate it.

Anyway, I quite like the idea of the mine vs minesweeper situation being like an arms race- kind of the way cloaking vs sensors works now, but with more variables thrown into the mix to reduce predictability. For example ship & fleet experience should definitely make a difference to the amount of successful mine hits, and previous knowledge that there was a minefield in that location. I like the idea of formation being a factor, and combat sensors and ecm and ship size.
I'd also like to see the sensors/cloaking system overhauled and mines worked into that. (ie taking range and other factors into account as well as sensor power vs cloaking power)

Bearing all this in mind, I think the best idea is the one suggested a few Posts ago to have some kind of unseen strategic combat played out every time a minefield is encountered. Then all the above factors could be worked in at once, and the result of a minefield encounter would never be 100% predictable as it is now.

Finally, there should be a "retreat at minefield/plough on through" setting for each fleet- if set to "retreat at minefield" then they should have a chance to go back a sector when they first encounter the mines (ie after the first few explosions), leaving some of the fleet and most of the minefield intact. If the "strategic combat" approach was used to manage minefields, this would amount to a "retreat from combat" option- something else I'd love to see resurrected for se5.

Re: SEV discussion: Mines
 

kwok expand on that post from 11 down

Re: SEV discussion: Mines
 

Dogscoff, you would need selectable buttons that would auto-program the ships for those people who aren't programmers. other than that, it sounds like a great idea.

maybe a selectable list-thingy that you could add to.

[ January 27, 2004, 19:34: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

Re: SEV discussion: Mines
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yeah, or better yet a drag+drop flow chart.

Re: SEV discussion: Mines
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well the way I envision it still exists. it just failed to detect the ship. (I always think of SE4 mines as movable. ie they sense and the home in on a ship. IF the just sat there waiting to be hit... Well space is BIG really really BIG)

Re: SEV discussion: Mines
 

Like an expanded experience type

Ie overall experience values
Experience vs fighters
Experience vs drones
Experience in mines (detection and laying and navigating around)
Experience in well other areas.

You might have 10 or so different experience breakdowns that would affect combat more so in an expanded way instead of just the basic fleet and ship experience.

This might also lead to new technology and alien technology types + new events ie ship was attacked by space pirates in fighters or drones (or oterhs) and has gained 3% experience points when in combat against fighters.

Re: SEV discussion: Mines
 

Here is another way mines could work:

The chances for a mine to hit a ship could be a simple chance formula where the maximum mines that can be in a sector represents a 100% hit chance for ships passing through. Each mine laid counts as a % of that total. For example with a 100 mine limit, if you had 20 mines that'd be 20% to hit chance for each ship passing through. So, say 50 ships were passing through in that example without minesweepers, perhaps 10 ships would take damage or be destroyed.

Re: SEV discussion: Mines
 

My biggest grip about the mine system in se4 is that there's no way to detect the mine fields (correct me if i'm wrong... i'm still a newb)... This is a realism issue that doesnt' involve any micro short of researching the proper scanning tech...

Seems to me that any mine large enough to blow up a huge ship should be visible orbiting a planet... I DO like the idea of not being able to tell on the other side of a warp point but once in system or say once your reach the range of your scanners you should be able to spot which sectors have mines and the approximate size....

Just a little pet peeve about mines in SE4

Re: SEV discussion: Mines
 

Thats all you have to is put up a fast mine field in se4 and that should stop the AI cold http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Re: SEV discussion: Mines
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">How about having [%experience%] as a legal variable to use in the equations?

It could affect anything any way you want, then.

Re: SEV discussion: Mines
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Actually there is never any way to detect mines in stock SE4, other than crashing into them. Some mods (such as Adamant) make mines detectable, with actual cloaking components instead of super-cloaking built into the hulls.

Re: SEV discussion: Mines
 

Hmmm... I think we may be missing something here. What is the purpose of mines, in a game, and not a simulation?

I understand it to be a sort of random threat to opponents, something to limit our ability to just go wherever we want with our massive fleets.

Some of the irritations for people is the "all or nothing" aspect, so random misses would be a good addition. The tendency is for people to go as fast as possible to reach the 100 mine limit, and likewise to reach the 100 mine sweeping limit. This too perfect numbering system for mines could be countered by decaying minefields, but I think it would be cool if that were keyed to total amount there -- i.e. as you approach 100 mines, the decay increases, but you could conceivably have a few more than 100, for a short while. Then the decay falls off, so that a 20 mine field might lose one only every few turns.

Something I'd like to see is mines that have several components that are needed. The mine hull should have no cloaking, and no "magical only hit enemy" sensor. You drop these killer kegs of ball bearings in space, and anything that enters gets hit. You know where you've laid them, so you can avoid them. Any one can see them, so they can avoid them as well. But what if you have to cross that sector? Build sweepers and grit your teeth. My idea here is to return the mine field to a “do not touch” status, instead of “stealth death”.

Later research can give mine cloaking devices, and sensors that allow friendly ships past (gotta add an intel project to allow one of your ships to steal the codes and allow it's safe passage -- wouldn't that be a surprise, Bwa-ha-ha). The ultimate tech would be Von Neumann mines, that would use interstellar material to overcome the mines' decay rate, maybe even create more mines than were originally laid (you can call those self-replicating mines if you're a diehard Star Trek:DS9 fan)

Building on the DS9 angle, races should get angry if normal space lanes are blocked with mines, whereas if you mine a small planet of yours as a defensive measure, people might tolerate that to some degree.

Re: SEV discussion: Mines
 

IMO mines are not that bad in SE IV after all and I would prefer not too complicated mines for SE V.
They should be cheap and deadly to an unprotected ship. But at highest tech level sweeping should be a reliable method to removed them.
What I would like to see are different "sweeping resistence" for mines: I SE IV every mine counts as 1 for sweeping. For SE V you could build advanced mines that count as 2 or more for sweeping. This makes sweeping more difficult. And if you have higher unit in space limits in SE V you can drop this 100 mines per sector limit, which is not good IMO.

Re: SEV discussion: Mines
 

I think all very good ideas - perhaps expanding upon that mines to start with could only damage unshielded ships - shielded ships would be protected - but with mines blocking a warp point perhaps with ships coming through depending on the tech and the number start off with a 1% chance of hitting and then work up ?

Make cloak ships less likley to be hit by a mine ?

Perhaps some sort of new weapon (drones etc) that can be sent through warp points to scout around or sats that can be "pushed" through warp points to scout for mines first.

Id like to see mines still included but some targetted changes made to the mine system.

Re: SEV discussion: Mines
 

how about diferent mines for fighters and ships?
fighters should be able (with corect guns) to sweep antiship mines with a fair degree of sucsess, however they should have some trouble with the anti fighter mines.

I still thinking Captain Kwok's first idea is the best so far...
what if you had the mines moveing in a random pattern instead of the ships, with the ships moveing straight through?

Re: SEV discussion: Mines
 

Don't forget the game has to be playable, you micromanagement maniacs http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

My advise to MM: Keep the stock game simple (SEIV model is just fine), but keep as many options as possible open to the modders.

Re: SEV discussion: Mines
 

Yes, mines should definitely do the damage type listed, and not have automatic shield-skipping.

Re: SEV discussion: Mines
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Actually in the real world mines are intended to be a "stealth death". Nobody will mine the ground and then establish a sign "Caution! Mines here!", unless you want to flood enemy with incorrect information.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Imo, the easiest way to fix minesweeping for se5 is to use ability Can sweep N kt of mines per use., instead of current Can sweep N mine per use.

Re: SEV discussion: Mines
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Hmmm...I didn't want to say this, it could turn this SE5 discussion into an OT flamewar, but consider the DMZ between North and South Korea:

It is mined.

Everyone on the planet Earth knows this.

The opponents do not know exactly where each mine is, but know not to go there.

If North and South Korea want to have a war (does that statement make sense outside of SE4? oh well), they must go around the mine fields.

Allies, and neutral parties can't enter the minefield and feel safe. Wildlife there is booming from the lack of human incursion.

Heck, even if the minefield is mapped out, and you have the map in hand, it's still a hazardous place, the map could be wrong, landmarks could shift, etc.

The US takes a lot of flack because the existance of this (arguably) useful minefield, undermines worldwide efforts to ban all minefields.

I'm suggesting that the addition of some of these challanges to SE5 minefields would make the game more interesting.

Re: SEV discussion: Mines
 

True but against shipping most Harbors will be mined with stealth in mind http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

Re: SEV discussion: Mines
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I know this is about se5 mines; however, GLV.
If you use the se4 TDM AI (extra mine sweeper class http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ) and only place your fields at the warp points and (try) to reframe from a desperate Planet mine launch against the AI Fleets - mines are fun.

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

Perhaps not both armor and shields at the same time: for general AI design concerns - but certainly the (Highest defensive value) of at least one or the other

= = = = = = = = = =

I like most of Arkcon se5 ideas posted here - June 18, 2004 08:10 PM http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ June 20, 2004, 15:49: Message edited by: JLS ]

Re: SEV discussion: Mines
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Even better, have the minesweepers do actual damage to the mines. Then, you can add armor (or even maneuvering thrusters if you want to make it abstract) to the mines to get better protection against sweeping at the expensive of payload. A good alternative to spamming the fields with small mines with only a single warhead, if you ask me. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Also, it does not increase the micromanagement very much at all, as the only change in practice would be in how you design your mines in the first place.

[ June 20, 2004, 19:39: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: SEV discussion: Mines
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Nah (shield-skipping),
If Aaron keeps the random ship damage introduced in 1.91 it will be way too easy to just steam straight through a minefield as soon as you have a decent sized fleet (as you can with organic armored ships now). Of course you can ballance that with bigger warheads, but then again you might make the early stray fields too powerfull. I kinda like it as it is as it helps making armor (even the regular one) a viable alternative to shields.

Re: SEV discussion: Mines
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Nah (shield-skipping),
If Aaron keeps the random ship damage introduced in 1.91 it will be way too easy to just steam straight through a minefield as soon as you have a decent sized fleet (as you can with organic armored ships now). Of course you can ballance that with bigger warheads, but then again you might make the early stray fields too powerfull. I kinda like it as it is as it helps making armor (even the regular one) a viable alternative to shields. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Perhaps you misunderstand me.
I still think stock mines should use the shield skipping damage type.

HOWEVER, the mines should not be shield skipping if their damage type is changed to "normal"

Re: SEV discussion: Mines
 

The purpose of earth bound mines is to slow down an enemies advance.

I agree with the stop movement policy. Toning down the damage would be my vote.

Re: SEV discussion: Mines
 

Originally posted by sachmo:
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">For se5 agreed. would like the AI to defend itself, however.


<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I am unsure of the stop movement policy taking a mass root - there must be better options?

SJ has toned the se4 mines down effectivly and they work fine http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif I would like to see this in se5 stock.

[ June 21, 2004, 15:41: Message edited by: JLS ]