Non A.I. issues for upcoming patch
 

Here are some non A.I. issues I would like to see addressed in the upcoming patch.

1) Crew Insurrection should be raised to a level 4 program and cost 250,000 pts. Also it should not be effective on ships with master computers and ships with higher experience.

2) An addition for extra large quadrants with 200 systems.

3) % chance of events should be 1%,2%,3% for low,mid,and high respectively. Stars don't blow up that often.

4) Small Troops should be standard to all races. Larger troops and weapons would still have to be researched. How many of us don't use troops because there is always something more important to research? Besides troops are low tech anyways.

5) Damage to kill population should be changed from 10 points to 20 points. This will make wiping out planets take a little longer.

6) Different damage points for different target types. An example would be a beam weapon would do say 50 pts damage to a ship,25 points to a planet,and 10 points to a fighter group.

7) New torpedo and missile weapon systems. These weapons will explode in a middle of a fighter group and send small projectiles in every direction. It would also be effective against planets and only do marginal damage against ships. The torpedo would be direct fire and medium range,the missile would be a longer range seeker and be about as fast as fighters are for the given tech level period.

8) All Anti-matter and Quantum torpedoes need to have a 30 weapon modifier to make it more accurate to make up for it not firing every round and it's size,and not being able to fire on fighters and sats. I exhaustively tested them against other weapon systems to reach the 30 weapon modifier value. There needs to be a small Quantum torpedo in it's tree.

9) Phased Polaron Beams are a little too strong but take longer to research. Lowering the damage they do SLIGHTLY, MAY be warranted. If they are reduced,Anti-matter and Quantum Torpedoes should then get only a 20% weapon modifier.

10) Shard cannons should fire every round.

11) Raising the output levels for Monoliths may be warranted.

12) If an engine can store 500 supplies and be an engine and be only 10 kt large why is a supply storage 20 kt in size? Maybe it should hold 1000 supplies or reduced in size to 10 kt. If you change the size to 10 kt the AI ship designs must be changed to utilize the added space that will be available.

13) Systems name list should have 255 names.

14) More variety of system types. 3-12 planet systems would be good. And for extra large maps,systems with 1-10 planets would be best.

15) Better sound files,especially for point defense cannons.

16) Solar Sails should only be able to be used when a ship runs out of fuel. They should be standard tech for all races at all tech levels. Each one in the tree should be larger in size than the one before.


I sent this list to Aaron,I hope he uses it in the next patch.


[This message has been edited by Emperor Zodd (edited 14 January 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Emperor Zodd (edited 14 January 2001).]

Re: Non A.I. issues for upcoming patch
 

You do know you can tweak almost all of this yourself?

Re: Non A.I. issues for upcoming patch
 

Yes, I did most of them already,but I want it to be in the patch officially.

Re: Non A.I. issues for upcoming patch
 

1) I can see making Master Computers immune to crew insurection, but what does experience have to do with loyalty? Historically, it is often the elite forces that have led the coups.

4) Don't forget troop weapons as well.

16) I think the intent of Solar Sails is "afterburner for ships", not "emergency propulsion". Better to leave it as it is but change the name & picture.

Re: Non A.I. issues for upcoming patch
 

1.) I think master computer can very well be corrupted by intelligence operations e.g. with a computer virus program. So I would not change that. I agree that the crew insurrection is at the moment to powerful, but if you increase it to level 4 intelligence operation there will be absolutely no defence against it at the moment because you only have counter intelligence level 3! I would prefer specific counter measures like a special loyalty component for ships and facility for planets. These components or facilities would greatly diminish the chance of a successful enemy take over of the ship or the planet by intelligence operations. The component or facility would however be expensive, so you would reasonably install it only on the most important ships and planets. Unfortunately I have not figured out, how to create this. I am not even sure that it can be done at the moment.

Re: Non A.I. issues for upcoming patch
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Atrocities:
More Single Planet Neutral players. I would love to enter a system, and fine that at least one planet has life on it. Now expand that to say 20% of the game galaxy having one or more planets with neutrals on them. You can establish trade, peace packs, conqure them, or just leave them alone. Right now, the neutral players are few and far between, and in a galaxy with 250 systems, it would be nice to have a ton of neutral AI races. (ONE planet up to ONE system)

These are just some of the features I would love to see added to up coming patches. Thanks for your time.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yes seeing more neutral little empires spread through out the galaxy would defenitly be cool, providing a variable in the settings file for the percentage of systems with life would be a nice touch.

Re: Non A.I. issues for upcoming patch
 

&gt;I would prefer specific counter measures
&gt;like a special loyalty component for ships
&gt;and facility for planets.

The Political Officer component and Secret Police Station facility?

Seriously, there should also be a "Psychic Shield" component a la Traveller to counter the loyalty subverter weapon.

&gt;a feature to the game that alows the TURNS
&gt;to process automatically after a set amount
&gt;of time in SINGLE PLAYER mode

Does this mean your turn would automatically end after some real-world time interval? I would HATE that! If you mean a time limit on turns generally, sometimes there is just a lot of micromanagement to do. For example, the turn you discover atmosphere converters you have to hit every domed planet in your empire to add it to the que, often having to scrap an existing facility to make room. If you mean the turn ends automatically after a certain period of no activity on my part, well with a wife & kid I often have to walk away without warning and can't get back for hours. I don't want to find the game has gone on without me when I get back!

&gt;A feature that would display the type and
&gt;amount of ships an enemy fleet has so that
&gt;the player can determine if they WISH to
&gt;engage the enemy.

You have this today, except for going through a warp point when you have no ships or colonies in the system on the other side (in which case you SHOULD be subject to a surprise). Stop one square short of the enemy fleet in question, then left on it. You will see the ships listed by name (for AI ships or human ships that have not been manually renamed, that will be class name & "hull number"). Right clicking on any one of them reveals its class (useful if it has been renamed), hull type (destoyer, etc...) and hull size in ktons. Actually, that works regardless of range as long as you have something in the same system that can "see" the contents of the system. If you have a ship with long range scanners that is within long-range scanner range of the enemy fleet, you get all sorts of additional details when you right click, like how much damage it has, the ability to look at its components to see what they are & which are damaged, etc... So, you can look before you leap.

&gt;SCRAP ALL FACILITIES OF THIS TYPE feature

This already exists as well. Bring up the Colonies screen (left click on the icon of the white dome on a green base near the upper left corner of the screen). On the menu forming the right side of the Colony screen is a button labelled "Scrap Facil Types". You can scrap every example of a given facility empire-wide with this. It won't stop the AI Minister from building them again, though (I'd like a way to do that!).

&gt;More Single Planet Neutral players

I second that motion. Similarly, I'd like there to be a bunch of "generic" _main.bmp files (the ones with the empire flags) so that planets could rebel and become independent. Rebel planets would keep all the same race & ship graphics as the race comprising the majority on the planet, but use one of these "spare" _main.bmp files.

&gt;A way, if at all possible, to set the TECH
&gt;level of EACH empire at the set up screen.
&gt; So if you want a few AI players to be
&gt;advanced tech, and you beginning tech, you
&gt;can set the game up that way.

You could do this in SE3. You could independently set tech, number of starting planets and homeworld characteristics independently for each player, including a generic setting to apply to random AI players. I think this should be added back into SE4.

&gt;Add a few things to the RANDOM events. Such
&gt; as PIRATES

I was thinking about that same thing in some detail Last week. The random event would create a pirate fleet made up of troop transports loaded with troops and warships BC or smaller heavy on boarding parties (but not so heavy they can't shoot). Pirate ships would all have an small inherent repair capability (maybe one system per turn, affecting only the ship itself). Pirates would be built with the best "general" tech available to any player at the time the pirate fleet is generated (nothing that depends on racial traits, though). The pirates would have a natural stealth which would cloak them against the best sensors. It would hide them if going through minefields, satellites (except at planets), etc..., but not from ships or bases IN THE SAME SECTOR. The pirates would select a fleet or planet they can beat within the system they appear in and attack it, without regard for who owns it. Captured ships would be scrapped on the spot (pirates wouldn't need a shipyard). Planets would be invaded an pillaged (scrap all facilities & cargo), but would revert to the previous owner's control as soon as the pirates leave. The proceeds from all this would go into a special "account". When the pirate's account reaches two times the original cost of the pirate fleet, the pirates disband. Pirates will move to an adjacent system after each raid, and look for a new target (taking ships/fleets that appear as targets of opportunity while in transit). They would lay low in the same system (or select another target there) if exiting means engaging a superior fleet that is blocking the warp point, though. To catch them, you'd have to either lay an ambush with cloaked warships at a likely target(assuming the pirates lack the sensor tech to defeat your best cloak) or beat around the system where they Last struck (and adjacent ones) with fleets hoping to bumble into the sector they currently occupy. Or, wait until they get enough loot to disband. If a pirate ship is damaged such that its strategic movement capability falls below 3 and the pirates can't get all ships back to at least 3 in one turn of repair, the sluggards will be split off into another fleet that will try to catch up later after it is repaired.

Re: Non A.I. issues for upcoming patch
 

Bill, like your pirate idea.

I want a way in the construction window to apply the orders I just gave to one planet/space yard to all or some I select. Very tedious to fo into 20 base space yards and give them orders to build the same ship at emergency rate and repeat. Lots of clicks. I want to copy queues to other places. Somehow.

Re: Non A.I. issues for upcoming patch
 

If at all possibable, could MM please add a feature to the game that alows the TURNS to process automatically after a set amount of time in SINGLE PLAYER mode. Let the player determine the time that they would like the turn to process at. I.E. 1 minute, 2 minutes, etc.

ORBITAL RESEARCH FACILITIES. Please consider designing a component that can be placed onto StarBase (2000kt weight) that would add a bonus to research within a system.

A feature that would display the type and amount of ships an enemy fleet has so that the player can determine if they WISH to engage the enemy. (In other words, when it says "Enemy ships in that sector. Do you wish to enter" Have a feature that allows the player to see how many and of what type of ship the enemy has in that sector so they can determine if its prudent to enter.)

I have not found this feature in the game, but if it exsisits, please forgive me.

I would like a SCRAP ALL FACILITIES OF THIS TYPE feature. So that when your research reaches a certain point, and you no longer need "X" building on your planets, you can scrap them all at the same time. (For example. When I max out on research, that is I have researched everything, I would like the ability to scrap ALL research facilities throught my empire on all of my planets at the sametime.)

The reverse would be, BUILD THIS FACILITY on every planet feature. In other words, you have a ton of non breathable atmospheres, and you want to start converting them one that your people can breath, you simply use this feature to mass build Atmospheric converts on all planets that you inhabit that are not your type. (Provided you have an open building space available)

Add a few things to the RANDOM events. Such as PIRATES, and ROUGE FACTIONS. Say you have a system that does not have any ships in it. To me, if I was a pirate or a rouge, that system would become ripe for the plucking.

A way, if at all possible, to set the TECH level of EACH empire at the set up screen. So if you want a few AI players to be advanced tech, and you beginning tech, you can set the game up that way.

More Single Planet Neutral players. I would love to enter a system, and fine that at least one planet has life on it. Now expand that to say 20% of the game galaxy having one or more planets with neutrals on them. You can establish trade, peace packs, conqure them, or just leave them alone. Right now, the neutral players are few and far between, and in a galaxy with 250 systems, it would be nice to have a ton of neutral AI races. (ONE planet up to ONE system)

These are just some of the features I would love to see added to up coming patches. Thanks for your time.

------------------
"We've made too many compromises already, too many retreats! They invade our space and we fall back -- they assimilate entire worlds and we fall back! Not again! The line must be drawn here -- this far, no further! And I will make them pay for what they've done!" -- Patric Stewart as Captain Picard
UCP/TCO Ship Yards

[This message has been edited by Atrocities (edited 14 January 2001).]

Re: Non A.I. issues for upcoming patch
 

I would like to see "Starting Tech Levels" at game setup so that each human player can select their staring technology levels, like in SE III.

Re: Non A.I. issues for upcoming patch
 

Hrrrrrrrrrrm.

More neutral AIs? I'd worry that, from a human perspective, they're going to mean precisely one thing: free tech, particularly colonization tech. There is, after all, no apparent diplomatic penalty from bullying the small and weak in this game, or, for that matter, for simply genociding them. I'm not sure that the AI is nearly as good as exploiting them -- in my current game, for instance, the Noraks appeared to have simply annihilated the Cluk-Ruks, with no evidence of using them for their atmosphere (Methane; Noraks use O2) as a human might have. I only found out of the C-R previous existence since the Norak ships (carrying missiles as their main armament) left behind a C-R satellite they couldn't shoot (apparently the combat AI doesn't know about shooting sats with PD).

If there were a penalty -- perhaps interfering with a helpless neutral should cause a LOT of unhappiness, at least for peaceful types then it might not be as tricky an issue.

As for pirates, I'd rather not have practically undetectable fleets wandering around. It's a bit bizarre (that's more advanced tech than anybody else can have), and leads to gamey aspects (because somebody *will* capture one eventually regardless of self-destruct, master computers and so forth -- and then arguably should get such advanced tech. But then, it can't be allowed to happen because it'd completely unbalance the game...).

If you want to give them nifty abilities, some might be --


* high base experience (otherwise, they wouldn't have remained alive as outlaws for that long)

* Innate power conservation, learned due to life on the run (same reason for repair skill)

* ability to move components from ship to ship, damaging them in the process (again, life on the run, in space, without planetary support is going to require some DARN good mechanical skills to stay alive. This would be used for taking components from captured ships and using them in their own. So instead of necessarily coming from an advanced culture from the start, they salvage parts, even if it results in some extremely weird ship designs -- like ships with organic armor and allegiance shifters and so forth. Actually, the stranger, the better... So they take whatever components they like, siphon off the supply, and blow up the rest.)


------------------
-- The thing that goes bump in the night

Re: Non A.I. issues for upcoming patch
 

"5) Damage to kill population should be changed from 10 points to 20 points. This will make wiping out planets take a little longer. "
Matter of choice. It used to be that planets were impossibly hard, but now they are middle of the road. I think its fine the way it is.
"6) Different damage points for different target types. An example would be a beam weapon would do say 50 pts damage to a ship,25 points to a planet,and 10 points to a fighter group."
Too much work and micromanagement. You'd have to look up every value and it would be a mess,IMO.
"8) All Anti-matter and Quantum torpedoes need to have a 30 weapon modifier to make it more accurate to make up for it not firing every round and it's size,and not being able to fire on fighters and sats. I exhaustively tested them against other weapon systems to reach the 30 weapon modifier value. There needs to be a small Quantum torpedo in it's tree."
Agree, the quantom torps are weak. Also the small quantom torp is a good idea, I suggested it in the beta forums before, no response.
"10) Shard cannons should fire every round."
Changed for balance reasons, they used to fire once every time, but not anymore. As I said, they were too powerful and changed for balance reasons.
"11) Raising the output levels for Monoliths may be warranted."
They produce each resource, at a pretty good level. Can't be good at everything.
"12) If an engine can store 500 supplies and be an engine and be only 10 kt large why is a supply storage 20 kt in size? Maybe it should hold 1000 supplies or reduced in size to 10 kt. If you change the size to 10 kt the AI ship designs must be changed to utilize the added space that will be available."
Supply storage III does hold 1000 supplies.
"16) Solar Sails should only be able to be used when a ship runs out of fuel. They should be standard tech for all races at all tech levels. Each one in the tree should be larger in size than the one before."
I don't know. Standard for each race? As in given to each race in the beginning?

Re: Non A.I. issues for upcoming patch
 

&gt;More neutral AIs? I'd worry that, from a
&gt;human perspective, they're going to mean
&gt;precisely one thing: free tech,
&gt;particularly colonization tech.

That could be addressed in various ways, including just not allowing transfer of colonization tech. Frankly, though, I didn't even think of it because in my own data set it is a non-issue. I have converted all the races to "rock", removed gas giant colonization tech and removed all ice planets with atmosphere other than "none". I've done this because I personally don't feel it is realistic for humans (or anything from a similar environment to ours) to live on ice planets (as I understand them, frozen atmoshere not just a terrestial type planet with an arctic climate like in Star Wars) except in domes, or on gas giants at all. With this change, gas giants are useful only via remote mining and because they sometimes have "rock" moons. You can colonize those no-atmoshere ice planets with domes, but atmosphere conVersion doesn't work on them because there is nothing to convert them to. So, you see in my data set the neutrals and players all start with the same colonization tech and this concern is a non-issue.

&gt;If there were a penalty -- perhaps
&gt;interfering with a helpless neutral should
&gt;cause a LOT of unhappiness, at least for
&gt;peaceful types then it might not be as
&gt;tricky an issue.

I think there should be some pretty severe diplomatic penalties to genocide or other sorts of "evil" behavior. The penalties would be both in happiness within your empire and the attitude of AI empires toward you.


&gt;As for pirates, I'd rather not have
&gt;practically undetectable fleets wandering
&gt;around. It's a bit bizarre (that's more
&gt;advanced tech than anybody else can have),
&gt;and leads to gamey aspects (because
&gt;somebody *will* capture one eventually
&gt;regardless of self-destruct, master
&gt;computers and so forth -- and then arguably
&gt;should get such advanced tech. But then, it
&gt;can't be allowed to happen because it'd
&gt;completely unbalance the game...).

Special pirate abilities like their stealth & repair ability are "racial traits", and humans could not play pirates, so captured pirate ships would lose these special abilities just like ships of a Priopulsion Experts race lose their movement bonus if captured by a non-Propulsion Experts race. The indetectability is admittedly cinematic, but think of it as the pirates just being very clever Errol Flynn-style rogues rather than "tech". The whole concept of pirates in cinematic to start with, "Space Opera" chrome.

Re: Non A.I. issues for upcoming patch
 

The pirate suggestion is interesting. If implemented, they should also allow supporting pirates as an intelligence op. Could make this intelligence operation also cost resources as well. Once formed, they would be self supporting. England supported buccanear raids on Spanish gold shipping. Basically, they allowed buccanears to refuel at their ports and spend their money at their colonies. The difference between a pirate and a buccanear was the buccanears had paperwork from English authorities authorizing the raid. Independent pirates were considered outlaws. The Spanish pretty much saw no difference between the two, except that Buccanears were a diplimatic issue as well.

Re: Non A.I. issues for upcoming patch
 

I think the term you are looking for, to refer to "licensed" pirates, is privateer. Bucaneer is just a synonym for pirate, derived from the fact that the earliest Caribbean pirates were escaped slaves & convicts (much the same in those days) who originally hunted & tanned hides to support themselves before discovering that piracy was easier and more profitable. A privateer was someone in possession of a "Letter of Marque and Reprisal". This document was issued only during wartime, and authorized the privateer to raid the enemies of the issuing nation for the duration of the war. Countries did this because regular navies were virtually non-existent in peacetime, and could not be spared in wartime to fight in secondary theaters. The privateer kept the bulk of the loot from his raids, but the issuing government got a cut (with kickbacks to the individual issuing official, of course). So, if a war broke out all the pirates were quick to go see the nearest colonial governor of one of the combattants (another selection criteria being that the governor in question wouldn't shoot on sight) and apply for their letters. Sometimes the same guy would get a letter from both sides. One occupational hazard - if the war ended and you didn't hear about it before conducting a raid, the guy who issued the letter might just hang you for a pirate when you got back. This entire system fell into disuse once countries started maintaining large peacetime navies, and stationing regular navy squadrons in distance colonial waters.

The reason that the Spanish did not distinguish between pirates and privateers is that they did not recognize the right of any person of any other nationality to be in the Caribbean. A treaty between Spain and Portugal in 1494, arbitrated by the Pope, established "The Line" running north-south 370 miles west of the Azores. The Pope gave all of the New World west of The Line to Spain, east of it to Portugal. So, the Spanish considered anybody else colonizing west of The Line to be trespassing. The Spanish also had laws against their colonists trading with foriegn ships, so any foriegn ship west of the Line must be a pirate. This resulted in the condition described by the term "no peace beyond The Line", meaning no matter what the diplomatic state of affairs was in Europe the Spanish and everybody else were "fair game" to each other in the Caribbean (especially the English, since as Protestants they rejected the authority of the Pope).

During the reign of Elizabeth I, in the years leading up to the Spanish Armada incident, the English government turned a blind eye to the piratical activities of a group of English captains call the "Sea Hawks" (in return for a share of the loot). The did not issue "Letters of Marque & Reprisal" to the Sea Hawks, though, for reasons that we would today call "maintaining plausible deniability". The Spanish Ambassador would complain, and Good Queen Bess would shrug and say she had no control over what happened in Spanish colonies in the new world, there was no evidence against any of the Sea Hawks that would stand up in court, etc... The Sea Hawks then formed the nucleus of the English fleet which opposed the Spanish Armada. Some later colonial governors took much the same approach with pirates on a local level, before European governments finally cracked down in the early 1700's.

Still, creating pirates in enemy territory might be a valid intel project.

Ahr...beam 'em the Jolly Roger signal & fire a quantum torpedo across their bow, matey!

Re: Non A.I. issues for upcoming patch
 

Bill, a very good summation of affairs in the Carribean. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif And I agree, supporting/establishing pirates in others territories shuold be something we can do.

Re: Non A.I. issues for upcoming patch
 

Now that would be a fun game in itself. Sid Meier's Pirates in Space http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif. I would love to see a game like that maybe set in a Space Empires galaxy.

[This message has been edited by Tomgs (edited 15 January 2001).]

Re: Non A.I. issues for upcoming patch
 

Remote Mining Bug:

When mining with a bunch of robominers on one battlestation(it's not really woth it, I know by now) I found the following:
I had 7 mineral miners, 5 organics and 2 radioactives miners on board. Each turn the value of the planet decreased by 7 percentage points for EACH of the ressources. This should be changed to 7/5/2 in this case, i.e. it should depend on how much is mined of the specific ressource and not on the maximum for one ressource.

http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif I'd love to see the pirates too! Especially those component stealing ones. They would have really crazy ships!
The intel project is perfect too.

(Funny how we're beta-testing a full-release, no? But then: that's kind of part of the fun http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif )

Re: Non A.I. issues for upcoming patch
 

More neutral AIs as in more in number during the game? Or more to choose from during setup?

Re: Non A.I. issues for upcoming patch
 

I'd like trade to become more important. Right now weak empires want to trade with strong ones to get big bonuses. Big empires have no reason to trade with anyone. And I mean treaties not trade offers. Here on earth, trade is very important. Cutting external trade to a nation cripples its economy, even if the nation is essentially self-sufficient. I'd like to see something like that implemented in the game. I don't, for the life of me, know how, but I know I'd like to see it.

I'd like to see the scoring system fixed. Right now there are several ways to get an amazingly high score while being exceptionaly weak. For example, the scoring system counts numbers of ships and bases, not what's on them. So a baseship with a master computer and nothing else, sitting in orbit mothballed has about 4 times the effect on your score as a cruiser decked out with weapons and actively crushing your enemies.

Morale bonuses and penalties for battle need to extend beyong the system where the battle is fought. They need to have empire-wide effects. If I send a few hundred ships to their deaths in a far off corner of the galaxy, this should make my people unhappy. But it doesn't. Similarly, if I am victorious in battle capturing a new system from my enemy, this should make my people happy, but it doesn't. Battles only effect the morale of the planets in the same system as they occur. Blech!

I despreately want to see planet conditions get the same treatment that Atmosphere got. There is no reason to even delude yourself into thinking that a race from ice worlds with no atmosphere would use a Climate Improvement Facility to make a planet more hospitable to a race who lives on methane-based Gas Giants. My optimal conditions should be deadly to someone else, and mild to a third party. Just implement "Conditions types 1-5" or go with the Star Trek Class-system, but do something!

Low populations need to have severe production penalties, and the best way to do this would be as a formula, not as a list of population sizes and bonuses/penalties.

Ruins could have interesting things like a neutral race, an advanced ship, resources, or even something dangerous. Limiting it to tech is a little dull.

I'll back the people who want to see fighters as starting tech. I don't understand why I can build interstellar craft, but not interplanetary ones. However, I'd much prefer the idea for variable starting tech. Not necessarily totally random, but it would be nice if different races had differnt starting techs.

A race from a Gas Giant shouldn't be terribly happy living on an Ice World. Sure they can learn how, but it's just not the right environment for them. Same with people from Rock worlds on Gas Giants. right now there's a 1:5 ratio for population and facilities on domed:not colonies. I'd like to see a 1:3:5 with the 3 for not domed wrong planet type.

Domed planets, wrong world type, and conditions should all LIMIT, not modify, LIMIT happiness levels. It's too easy to get lots of modifications to happiness and overcome any penalty. But limiting the total happiness makes those worlds much more likely to get upset, and makes choosing your targets in war much more important.

Someone recently posted something about wanting plagues to spread, and I really liked that idea. Who ever posted it pat yourself on the back for me.

I'd like to see environmental resistance effect maximum population.

------------------
Compete in the Space Empires IV World Championship at www.twingalaxies.com.

Re: Non A.I. issues for upcoming patch
 

What I would like to see is the ability to create specific ships, facilities, and components for a specific race. If this can be done already, will someone please enlighten me http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif Plus I would like the ability to set certain starting techs to individual races. This way, say the Romulans would get cloaking very early while the Hydrans had fighters. (OK..so I'm a bit of a Trek fanatic)Of course this can be done to some degree by re-arranging the research tree in the Race AI files.

I really like Nyx's idea about having Ruins have more than tech...the advanced ship or race idea is great..kinda like civilization.
Maybe add a few bloopers to it too, like a plague or wild savages which kills off the colonists..hehe.

One more item..not overly important, but I would like a confirmation window when saving a game...basically saying "Do you want to save this game..yes or no". More than once I have inadvertently saved over a different saved game by accident...OK so I have 10 thumbs too. Would be nice to have anyways.

Re: Non A.I. issues for upcoming patch
 

Sabre21 - cloaking is a non-issue until the next patch. The AI will not use it even if their ships are equipped. I stealthy ships built into a racial trait I created for my Darlok, but trashed it after I figured out the non-cloaking bug. Basically I created a set of low-level cloaking components that required the racial trait. So I wouldn't screw up the designs, I made 0k tonnage and required it to be on every ship the race made, thus all their ships/bases/sats were "stealthy" as the Romulan would be. So it works, we just need to wait until the next patch to match the Romulans against the Darlok!

Re: Non A.I. issues for upcoming patch
 

You bet! In fact, some of them should be primitives with a tech level of zero: no discoveries, and no idea how to make any either.

It'd also be nice if warp drive was a discovery you had to make -- that way you could give it to neutrals near your rivals and suddenly they're a problem. Though I guess that eliminates the only distinction between neutral and AI-controlled player. Hmm. Maybe eliminate that distinction and instead have a score for expansiveness? Empires with a score of zero wouldn't expand beyond their home system, but could at least send warp ships against their enemies' home planets in retaliation.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SirDarwin:

Yes seeing more neutral little empires spread through out the galaxy would defenitly be cool, providing a variable in the settings file for the percentage of systems with life would be a nice touch.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Re: Non A.I. issues for upcoming patch
 

On the subject of colonization:

I interpret "ice" as being frozen atmosphere, temperatures near absolute zero, etc... Life forms which evolved there would not be able to live in any other environment. There is a book which I think is titled "Camelot 40K" about such life forms.

Similarly, gas giant critters wouldn't be living on any other type.

The notion of anything like us living on either of the above is also an impossibility.

So, I propose the following changes:

You should need domes to live on the same planet type but with different atmosphere from your home world (as you do now). The "conditions" would refer to what it is for folks who can live there without a dome. For anybody who needs a dome, it would act like the conditions were at whatever the lowest rating is (don't remember off the top of my head).

If you convert the atmosphere, the conditions would gradualy get worse, until they reached the lowest rating just before the atmosphere actually changes. It then starts at the lowest rating for the new atmosphere and have to be improved via the appropriate facility.

There should be a special tech required to be able to build domes at all. It would take a special, and specially expensive, colonization module to implace a domed colony. That would only implace the population held by the colonization module itself (so don't bother with cargo storage on a domed colony ship). The population in a domed colony would not grow. You would have to build additional dome space in the planet's production que and transfer in additional people as cargo after the dome space is ready. The maximum population limits would remain as today.

It would take special techs to be able to colonize planets of another type from your race's environment (rock, gas giant or ice). Those techs would require developing the dome tech first, and allow building the special and expensive colonization modules for those planet types.

You would not be able to obtain the special techs for colonizing planets of another type except from another race of your own type. How a gas giant race colonizes gas giants is of no use to a rock race. How an ice race colonizes gas giants is of no use to a rock race, either.

You would either not be able to convert planets between types at all, or it would be very expensive (probably cheaper to build a ring world, if you think about it).

Building a planet from asteriods should be a project akin to ring world construction (only cheaper), not something done by a component. Blowing one up is fine like it is, though (lots easier to blow things up than to build them).

Finally, the number of facilities you could operate on a planet would be determined by population. It should take a nearly full planet to operate that size of planet's full allotment of facilities. The facilities in excess of what could be operated by the current population would be "idle". Idle facilities ones would be labelled as such on the facilities report, and you would be able to reorder the facilities in some list for each individual colony to enable the ones you want.

Re: Non A.I. issues for upcoming patch
 

A thought on being able to 'see' the enemy fleet before deciding on battle: as Barnacle Bill points out, in many circumstances you can already do this by looking at the fleet before you move your ships into that sector. HOWEVER, if your ship/fleet is moving under orders, and happens to run into an enemy fleet, there currently isn't a way to find out what's in that fleet. But there should be.

BTW - on the same topic, I kinda like the idea that you're forced into battle if you transit a warppoint into the middle of someone else's fleet. Fairly realistic; once you've warped through, it's too late to retreat...

Re: Non A.I. issues for upcoming patch
 

How do you tell if a race is a "neutral" race? I just saw an interesting situation where it seems the Sergetti split into two factions. Deep into a game, after the whole quadrant had been explored, I received a "First Contact" message with, I think, the Aldans. These people looked like the Sergetti and the race profile referred to them as Sergetti, and was the exact same text that the Sergetti had. What's up with this?

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

Cheers!
Jeff George

Re: Non A.I. issues for upcoming patch
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JeffG:
How do you tell if a race is a "neutral" race? I just saw an interesting situation where it seems the Sergetti split into two factions. Deep into a game, after the whole quadrant had been explored, I received a "First Contact" message with, I think, the Aldans. These people looked like the Sergetti and the race profile referred to them as Sergetti, and was the exact same text that the Sergetti had. What's up with this?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They probably got PPP'd; often the planet forms its own faction rather than joining the PPPer (who may then be able to get the new faction to surrender, possibly giving him tech -- whereas the other result yields none).

One tip-off: ISTR that the neutrals at least used to have, if they don't still, completely average characteristics with no advanced traits.

Re: Non A.I. issues for upcoming patch
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Finally, the number of facilities you could operate on a planet would be determined by population. It should take a nearly full planet to operate that size of planet's full allotment of facilities. The facilities in excess of what could be operated by the current population would be "idle". Idle facilities ones would be labelled as such on the facilities report, and you would be able to reorder the facilities in some list for each individual colony to enable the ones you want.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There's actually already a flag for that in one of the data files. I think it would be interesting if there were greatly relaxed limits on the number of facilities built, but population limited the ones in use. Make the flag a facility-based variable, not a game-wide variable, so Cargo facilities take fewer people to man than a shipyard or some others. Then rework the robo miners facilities to provide additional manpower for facilities instead of increased output.

------------------
Compete in the Space Empires IV World Championship at www.twingalaxies.com.

Re: Non A.I. issues for upcoming patch
 

I've had this game for a couple of weeks now, and I'm having a bLast with it! A couple of thoughts regarding attacking planets have come up and I wonder how others feel about them.

First, it seems to me that planetary weapons should really be the only type of weapons that could knock out large populations. I can see the ability to knock out industrial capacity and other facilities to some extent with other weapons, but I just used a fleet of about 10 ships using mostly DUCs to wipe out 4 billion sentient beings. I can't see how projectile weapons, unless we are talking REALLY BIG projectiles, could kill large numbers of people from space. Mind you, from a game perspective, I can live with it and still enjoy the game, but it just doesn't seem right from a reallity perspective.

Second, it seems likely that if you do enough damage from space to wipe out 4 billion people, that the conditions of the planet should be affected by the attack. While I'm not an environmental researcher, my guess is that there would be severe atmosheric and geological effects caused by pounding a planet that hard. There should also be a lot of depleted uranium dust floating around, based on my above example. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif As far as I can tell, the planet is pretty much in pristine condition and waiting for me to colonize it as soon as my colony ship shows up. Seems like I should at least have to clean up the dead bodies or something.

None of this is to take away from the game, it's just some ideas that came to me while playing it, and I wonder what other people think.

------------------
Ursoids of the galaxy, unite!

Re: Non A.I. issues for upcoming patch
 

Hrm. _Domed_ colonies perhaps should still be fairly vulnerable. Even if you assume that this refers to multiple domes (you pretty much have to, for colonies on the scale of SE4's), breaching domes would still be far easier than trying to bombard 500M with acid, DU, missiles or what-not.

(Perhaps a new facility: underground shelter? Provides refuge for some limited pop against plagues and fairly high resistance against orbital bombardment of most kinds. Not sure how to reconcile it with gas giants, 'tho...)

------------------
-- The thing that goes bump in the night

Re: Non A.I. issues for upcoming patch
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Taqwus:
Hrm. _Domed_ colonies perhaps should still be fairly vulnerable. Even if you assume that this refers to multiple domes (you pretty much have to, for colonies on the scale of SE4's), breaching domes would still be far easier than trying to bombard 500M with acid, DU, missiles or what-not.

(Perhaps a new facility: underground shelter? Provides refuge for some limited pop against plagues and fairly high resistance against orbital bombardment of most kinds. Not sure how to reconcile it with gas giants, 'tho...)

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good point on the domed colonies, although those aren't going to get the really big populations. I was really thinking about the undomed colonies. Some kind of protective shelter for colonists is an interesting idea.

Another thought, weapon fire is almost guaranteed to hit a planet (99% I believe), but while hitting the planet is easy, I would think that hitting something important would be much more difficult. Landing small caliber rounds in the ocean shouldn't do too much damage (cause a lot of steam, maybe, because those things are going to be HOT after surviving penetration of the atmosphere).


------------------
Ursoids of the galaxy, unite!

Re: Non A.I. issues for upcoming patch
 

What does "PPPed" mean?

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

Cheers!
Jeff George

Re: Non A.I. issues for upcoming patch
 

One thing I would like to see changed is the ease of aquiring technology by non-research methods. Technology is the key to victory. While you should be able to steal or otherwise aquire technology, there should be restrictions on how fast you can use it and when you can begin to research additional levels. Just because you have an item doesn't mean you can use, build or advance the technology. You should have to research it, maybe at a reduced cost, or have the item a set number of years to simulate the time it takes to fully understand the item.
I also feel that the AI should be very conservative in trading technologies. They should only trade when it is to their benefit, based on their racial characteristics and the value of the tech traded.
I also think that you should only get 1 or 2 techs from a surrendering race, to simulate the destruction of data before the surrender.
Just some thoughts on ways to make a great game even better.

Re: Non A.I. issues for upcoming patch
 

JeffG:

PPP'd means "Puppet Political Party"d. In other words, the Puppet Political Party intel op succeeded against the world that got PPP'd.

Re: Non A.I. issues for upcoming patch
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Technology is the key to victory. While you should be able to steal or otherwise aquire technology, there should be restrictions on how fast you can use it and when you can begin to research additional levels.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've never managed to steal or discover tech faster than I can research it. Mostly because I research so much so fast that rapidly the AI has nothing left to give me and the ruins all come up empty.

Nevertheless, the simplest way to incorporate what your're thinking of is insteado f giving you one tech level, a new research project is added to your queue and a percentage of the value of each tech level you don't have is added to the points already spent. So if you have shields 1 and reverse engineer a ship with shields 2, you might only get 1/4 of the way to shields 2. But if you reverse engineered one with shields 4 you'd probably complete shields 2. If you already had your tech queue cluttered, you'd better wait or your scientists will get all that valuable data lost in buerocratic shuffling. May not be the world's more realistic, but it's not bad, and it would be simple to code.

------------------
Compete in the Space Empires IV World Championship at www.twingalaxies.com.