|
New Features You Would Like to See That Would Have to Be Hard Coded
I am posting this to see what kind of interest there is in features that can't be modded, only hard coded by Aaron. Features such as vagabond space races, natives, etc...
------------------ "He's dead, Jim."-- Lt. Commander Leonard "Bones" McCoy |Chief Medical Officer / USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) |
Re: New Features You Would Like to See That Would Have to Be Hard Coded
Components that can produce resources; the various elements required for making a nomadic race (i.e., population growth on a starship; maybe special super-sized hulls, with requirement for 50% population storage components; high-yield remote miners; resupply base component; resource storage components). Maybe a special cargo component that can ONLY hold population (I'm mostly certain this requires hard-coding, not just modding). Obviously, there'd also have to be a way for them NOT to start on planets, but on the special starship hulls.
Some of the above would also be nice for the generic races... DRONES!!! Whatever they are, they sound interesting... More options for ruins - maybe this is where "natives" belong... TCP/IP multiplayer - to at least allow play across a LAN without having to send files to a server & restart SE4.exe... More flexibility in cargo transfer and resource transfer menu selections - I dislike clicking the "Move 5" button 50 times to move 250M population. Also more flexibility in number of units to build. Maybe I only need 7 fighters to fill a carrier, and have no more cargo space on the planet; I want to build just 7 fighters in the most efficient way. Building 5, then spending a turn building 1, and yet another turn building 1, is horribly inefficient and wastes mouse clicks. Building 10 would waste resources as the Last 3 fighters aren't completed due to lack of storage... |
Re: New Features You Would Like to See That Would Have to Be Hard Coded
1. Interface improvements. None of these
change the game, just how it is played (intent: reduce micromanagement, repetition, and resulting sanity loss. I usually play 255-system quadrants, in case it's not obvious from below...) Things like -- * Better information access. * Allowing for a custom filter for, say, listing colonies with idle queues and facility space left. Or, just idle spaceyards. * System summary reports. Is there a System Robotoid Factory here? How many units, total, are in this system? * Searches. Which planet in this system has my fighters? * Log bookmarks. Re-opening the log file and scrolling to find each event that I've "processed" is repetitive, and should be easy to avoid. * Better, and more, log Messages. If something (say, a random event) destroyed a facility of mine, tell me *what type*, for instance. If a queue is now empty, *tell me* -- so I know whether or not I need to update an idle build queue. And so forth. Incidentally, if there were a way to generate a text dump of the Empire (listing, say, ship designs, whatever) it'd be simple Perl scripting to design arbitrary filters, and these could be hacked into XForms/Tk/whatever fairly quickly. But organizing all that data would be non-trivial. * Better information entry. * Letting me enter numbers, directly, wherever numbers apply. * Specifying a quantity for facilities; e.g. "Build 200 Monolith IIIs" for a Sphereworld, rather than clicking 200 times. Perhaps with a 'Change Qty' button. * Perhaps, allowing user notes on a per- planet basis; or simply making the per-system notes visible just by clicking the system background. * Other interface foo. * Search and delete/replace for construction orders would be nice -- replacing orders to construct old designs with orders to create new ones, for instance. * Allowing the queueing of an order to scrap something (taking zero time, just delaying it until then) would be sweet -- Sometimes, I'd like to queue * Scrap (1) mineral facility. * Build (1) monolith III. several times in order to replace facilities with a minimum production hit, and minimum repetitive micro. A 'wait X turns' command would be even sweeter, since we could auto-scrap atmosphere modifiers when they're no longer needed. * Per-planet unit auto-launch toggle. 2. Ministers that aren't high quite as often. * Ministers sometimes try things they cannot do, like create stars in SW systems, or trying to drop people on a world another M-controlled transport just filled. * Ministers that aren't afraid to resupply if their path would cause them to run out of supply... * More configurable ministers; e.g. allow me to specify maximum mine size, or what sort of features I want to mine (my stars, warp points between my systems, 'frontier' warp points, my planets, all planets...). Default pop count for Colonization minister. Option to NOT use damaging warp points. 3. Funky stuff. * Allowing components to have facility abilities. I suspect that this may add a fair bit of computational cost, depending on how he set things up; hopefully, it wouldn't have to iterate over every ship component in every ship on every turn. * Mobile habitats. Needed for truly vagabond races. * Derelict ships; can happen if life support, or MC, is entirely destroyed. Board, repair and analyze. * Option for BAD things to happen from mucking around in ruins. "A Fire Upon the Deep", anyone? ;-) * Multiple spaceyards on one big project <sigh>. * Option for e-build penalty to be resource waste, not down time. * AIs that instead of surrendering to me, possibly surrender to each other. Remember MoO2 when you rejected the Council (even if *you* were the one elected, heh)? * Option to have assimilated populations *not* automatically take on your racial traits (probably fairly nasty to do). * Saner blockade rules. An unarmed moon colony, for instance, should not be able to blockade. * A more configurable start. For instance, spending race points for better starting tech, or for primitive ships. * More configurable race abilities, like a higher default or higher maximum experience level. * Negative racial traits, like not handling overpopulation well (ala Moties in _The Mote in God's Eye_ and sequel). * Option to make warp points cost more than one MP, possibly with an amount of 'free' MP that you can use if you can't meet the first cost (e.g. 1/0 means it costs 1 always; 2/0 means if you only have 1, you need to wait until you have 2; 99/98 means it'll eat ALL your movement, but you only really need 1). * Variable warp-point limit, if one has to be there at all (currently, 10). * Option to base refit cost limits on original cost (to stop refit chains). Uh-oh. Netscape's thrashing; better post now before it crashes. ------------------ -- The thing that goes bump in the night |
Re: New Features You Would Like to See That Would Have to Be Hard Coded
HOw about some good random events?
Drones or space probe type ships. Warp capable missiles (a la Starfire). I agree...some way to build the exact number of ships or units you want (ex. if you want 7 right now you have to build 5, then 1, then 1 again, as DirectorTsaarx said) Well, others have probably already suggested these but I just wanted to get my 2 cents in! |
Re: New Features You Would Like to See That Would Have to Be Hard Coded
An intelligence project like "PROPAGANDA". Points are applied to make planets happier. Supplements happiness facilities.
|
Re: New Features You Would Like to See That Would Have to Be Hard Coded
1) Launch extra units that won't fit in storage into orbit instead of wasting resources.
2) Repeat build repeats the LAST item. Then I can add one item to the queue, and not have to disable/enable repeat build after it finishes. The repeat build LAST would give you a "Keep building nuke sats, but before you do that, finish your mineral miners" Either that, or repeat build works like Research and Intel repeat. ie. when complete, move it to the bottom of the list. Then I could have 2 nukesat, 2 PDCsat, 2 nuke, 2 PDC, etc. |
Re: New Features You Would Like to See That Would Have to Be Hard Coded
Well, there are things that need to be done to improve the UI (User Interface.) The UI gets cumbersome when you have a big empire. These things include:
- When you are working your way down a list and goto an item, usually there is no way to quickly return to your place in the list. - The 'Ships/Units' screen has no way to display just Fleets PLUS ships that are not currently assigned to a fleet. Lots of people have asked for the ability to create facilities/components that have additional empire-wide effects. For example: - An empire-wide 'happiness' generator. - An empire-wide ship/fleet experience generator (perhaps coupled with an empire-wide 'unhappiness' generator.) - An empire-wide robotoid factory. Ring Worlds/Sphere Worlds (RW/SW) have almost no reason to exist. It would be nice if they had some additional abilities. For example: - Maybe RW/SW might serve as platforms for the new empire-wide facilities. - Maybe RW/SW might be able to perform some of the Stellar Manipulation (SM) effects AT A DISTANCE (IE shoot storms at enemy planets, destroy planets, poison/destabilize warp points, etc - Perhaps a RW/SW might serve as a platform for a long range artillery facility. IE target ships/planets on the strategic screen. This would give SE4 modders the ability to recreate the 'Guns of Navaronne' scenario. Miles |
Re: New Features You Would Like to See That Would Have to Be Hard Coded
I think the native races would have to be hard coded in, especially that bit about them advancing and the limits on what technology to give them, space probes going through space rather then worm-holes fall into the same catagory, and so do the nomad races. I'd love to see all that, plus some more options for ruins. Each of those has it's own post on here somewhere.
I also just thought up a new one, haven't posted the idea yet, but I was thinking that a new diplomacy option might be nice. It's a gambling option, sort of like medieval Jousting. I put up a planet/ship/tech, and so do you, we agree on the fighters, and the combat goes through, winner take all. |
Re: New Features You Would Like to See That Would Have to Be Hard Coded
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Taqwus:
<BIG snip> * Saner blockade rules. An unarmed moon colony, for instance, should not be able to blockade. <snip> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Maybe an option to allow one planet/colony to attack a planet/colony in the same sector - right now, I think you have to have movement points available to perform an attack. However, if an enemy built a colony on one of my moons, I think my Weapon Platforms and/or Satellites would attack it soonest... |
Re: New Features You Would Like to See That Would Have to Be Hard Coded
Top three for me:
(1) AI intel file similar to research file where we can control what projects the AI will commence based on AI state (good way to eliminate 12 projects at once with 100+ year completion times and dump projects the AI will never use such as steal designs) (2) Ability to call objects in the Construct_Vehicle file based on "Design Name" instead of "Design Type" (3) Additional flag in the AI_Design_Types file to indicate whether this design should be added to a fleet. |
Re: New Features You Would Like to See That Would Have to Be Hard Coded
Ah, combat of champions, updated to the space age... Interesting. Hrm. Right now, there's not much reason for a _limited_ war, unless both sides are so low-tech that neither fleet can go the distance, and are numerous enough that colonies don't Last long in the war zone. Perhaps being at war, but *not* going about and winning battles, should cost happiness over time? And, perhaps, atrocities should be looked down upon by most races in communication (direct or indirect) with the victim? Hrrrrrrrm.
------------------ -- The thing that goes bump in the night |
Re: New Features You Would Like to See That Would Have to Be Hard Coded
Well, working on one of my earlier Posts... If there's no way to do it now, I'd LOVE for there to be a way for a fighter (possibly a larger one) to be warp capable.
|
Re: New Features You Would Like to See That Would Have to Be Hard Coded
I want to be able to access a planets build queue from the colony screen. Let me right click and then when I am done take me back right to the same spot in the colony list I was in. This is one thing SEIII had right on that was lost for some reason with SEIV.
I want a new command for Colony ships. "Colonize nearest" I hate searching through the planets screen to find one close to the colony ship I am giving orders too. Also would be nice to have a task based minister system. eg. Give your Construction minister the command "build 6 cruisers" He decides where unless I specify. Give your colonization minister the command, colonize planets in "X" system. He will give the command to the construction minister to build colony ships in an appropriate place and then give the ships the orders. |
Re: New Features You Would Like to See That Would Have to Be Hard Coded
A few things I would like to see (some culled from other threads):
Expansion of ground combat so that it ran much like tactical combat (this would require new troop components for movement as well). "Boundless" space tactical combat so that your faster ships can escape from the enemy more easily rather than being trapped in a corner. 2x2, 3x3 and 4x4 icons for bigger units in tactical combat. Special abilities that were only active in certain sector types (eg nebulae, stars, storms). This would make special sectors more strategically important (eg having a special research lab giving big bonuses to gravitation which functioned only next to a black hole). Mass production - discounts on production costs (but not maintenance!) for ship types after certain numbers had been built, e.g. 5% reduction after 10th ship, 10% reduction after 50th. This would make implementing new ship designs a more difficult choice - would the new components be worth having to re-earn the discount? Minaturisation tech - more efficient construction techniques which can reduce the weight of certain components allowing more per ship. This could be offered at higher Industry levels and would be similar to the MOO2 system where higher tech levels meant lower tech items took up less space. |
Re: New Features You Would Like to See That Would Have to Be Hard Coded
I like the idea of expanded ground combat. Until I read the message Boards around here, I didn't realize how little people utilize ground combat (And I always did wonder why planets I hit with an Assault Transport never had defending Troops...)
Codo |
Re: New Features You Would Like to See That Would Have to Be Hard Coded
would like to see the ability in tac combat at a warp point to jump back out once jump in to escape when getting the c**p beat out of you. also some form of initiative or mod so computer has chance if jumps in to fire before vporized .. i've taken to simulating this myself by not fire or (heaven forbid) rolling a dice to see who goes first, but would rather have it ship by ship vice fleet by fleet.
|
Re: New Features You Would Like to See That Would Have to Be Hard Coded
Sorry if these were mentioned:
1. STARTING TECH LEVELS LIKE SEIII! 2. Ability to add to multiple construction queues at once. 3. Be able to sort planet no only by atmospere, but by size and type. |
Re: New Features You Would Like to See That Would Have to Be Hard Coded
OH, yeah:
4. A way to use emergency propulsion for fleeted ships. That way you don't have to drop everthing out of a fleet, use the pods, then create a new fleet. |
Re: New Features You Would Like to See That Would Have to Be Hard Coded
Chlorine as an atmosphere (EE "Doc" Smith fan here http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif )
|
Re: New Features You Would Like to See That Would Have to Be Hard Coded
The option to sort planetary shipyards by build rate in the construction window (instead of alphabetical by planet)
------------------ Assume you have a 1kg squirrel E=mc^2 E=1kg(3x10^8m/s)^2=9x10^16J which, if I'm not mistaken, is equivilent to roughly a 50 megaton nuclear bomb. Fear the squirrel. |
Re: New Features You Would Like to See That Would Have to Be Hard Coded
The ability for the AI to determine if it has a decent chance of winning a battle BEFORE it attacks. Like a human does.
|
Re: New Features You Would Like to See That Would Have to Be Hard Coded
1) Tactical ground combat.
2) Tactical space combat without boundaires. |
Re: New Features You Would Like to See That Would Have to Be Hard Coded
Top priority: (again) improve AI:
1. Make it follow through on attacks 2. Eliminate suicidal ship movements (one colonizer or two cruisers beside my plainly visible 10 DN fleet) 3. Improve diplomacy mechanisms, make AI diplomatic behaviour more consistent/flexible/situation dependent |
Re: New Features You Would Like to See That Would Have to Be Hard Coded
Seperate name files for ships, fighters, and troops.
|
Re: New Features You Would Like to See That Would Have to Be Hard Coded
I would like to see:
1. A "Save Setup" option when creating a game, so that which ever map, races, and other options I select can be saved prior to starting the game. This way if all I wanted to do is say change the map, I can do that or select a different race. I know I can start a game and save it, but once started, I can't change any startup options. This would be a great feature for modders just wanting to test out a couple changes at a time with the same base scenario. 2. An ability to create a racial ship type, as we already have for components and facilities. 3. The ability to create an empire wide facility for both generic and race specific. This single facility would impact the entire empire. 4. Map editor (yeah, I know its supposed to happen some time this millennium) Sabre21 |
Re: New Features You Would Like to See That Would Have to Be Hard Coded
Two small tweaks to the interface:
1) make < enter > work as a hot key for the Close button in ALL windows and subwindows, not just the majority of them. 2) a hot key for the Go To button on the Log Screen. ------------------ Cap'n Q [This message has been edited by capnq (edited 07 March 2001).] |
Re: New Features You Would Like to See That Would Have to Be Hard Coded
In the creation of galaxy:
random size and type New tech: Stabilize planet core Restore Star nucleus Expand Warp (remove problems that damage ships) Universal colony In the tactical combat if you start with fighters outside carriers they are reported, otherwise not ->fix In the Empire options, add the directives for ministers: minimum nº troops p/planet (ships don't remove above that number, and the minister try to build up to it) type of ship priority to build (attack / colony / etc) mines in all waypoints satellites in all waypoints create defense stations In the Ship designs menu add: Info about the maintenance of the design Ship / unit can be build by minister Maximun number in service of this design (the minister don't build more) In the ships/units menu add: Ships of class xxx upgrade to class yyy mothball unmothball scrap All Ships AI controled (on/off) If units, units of class xxx scrap In the planets menu add: change all planets type xxx to type yyy Change the Ship Construction minister : Generic Ship Colony Ship Units If you have the flag 'Automatically use Individual Ministers for newly built vehicles', it must include the ships captured or that join you (race surrender / crew insurrection) If a race surrender to you and have techs that you can't (cristal) you can't research it but can build the itens that they have discovered (if surrender to you, they give you the blueprints) Also, the blueprints of units/ships they have designed must be acessible Add the system's Minister Manage the creation of system's wide facilities (like urban pacification center) If exist duplications of SWF in a system, remove redundant. If a planet in the system is rioting / angry, call / build troops or UPC. The troops minister must have the capability to send troops to rioting planets In the construction queue, add a check if you try to build more units than the planet can get. Also add the line 'up to max cargo avaiable' (like the one 'one turn worth'). The minister responsible to build units must have a check control before trying to build more units in a planet than is possible. If i send order to 10 ships to retrofit on a planet and in that turn only can retrofit 3 the others forget the order. The retrofit rotine, must take in consideration that exist ships with cargo and add the capability of removing it temporary (if exist avaiable space in the sector) Add the capability of the Ships that can close warp points to only do it to warps with possibility to damage ships (else is too dangerous to asign a minister). If you put a fighter bay in a ship (you can put it in all), it only have use if the ship is of design type carrier, otherwise the ministers igore it. If i put a cargo bay in a carrier (to add more fighters), the minister start to load generic cargo. Is possible to stop this ? If i build a ship that have minelayer capability / large cargo / shipyard , is possible to add a flag for that shipyard only build mines ? If i build a ship that have satlayer capability / large cargo / shipyard , is possible to add a flag for that shipyard only build satellites ? Is possible to add 'scrollmouse' support ? [This message has been edited by Crazy_Dog (edited 07 March 2001).] |
Re: New Features You Would Like to See That Would Have to Be Hard Coded
Does the Custom group thing work yet. If it doesn't it should be fixed. Or if it works I'd like to know how it works.
|
Re: New Features You Would Like to See That Would Have to Be Hard Coded
Another idea:
A setting during setup that lets you select whether the number of objects in a sector is always exactly 15, or a random number up to 15. In theory this could be modded as a bunch of different SystemTypes, but a setting would be less tedious. ------------------ Cap'n Q |
Re: New Features You Would Like to See That Would Have to Be Hard Coded
New warheads for mines (like only affect engines).
The AI start to build defense bases at warppoints. If a race surrender to you, get all is techs even the ones you right now can't (like crystal) - not capable to research, but obtain the ones already discovered. The designs from the races that surrender to you placed in a new tree (surrender ships /units) and the capability to build then. |
Re: New Features You Would Like to See That Would Have to Be Hard Coded
Dualhead display for strategic/tactical combat same as star trek armada. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif
tic |
Re: New Features You Would Like to See That Would Have to Be Hard Coded
I would like to see a way to trap ships, i seem to remember a trap on Startrek somewhere, where there was a damaged ship as bait. When your ship goes in to capture it finds itself in a field surrounded by mines that drain the power from your ship. Preventing movement and draining life support.
Planet Based tractor beams that actually have a little bit of range and let you capture a ship with troops on the planet would be nice. Assault shuttles (MOO2) style where you have marines crash it into the ship and attempt to take over the ship. The ability to Strip mine a planet as an offensive weapon, so we can make that little old russian tactic usefull. Kinda like playing with limited resources i guess. Allow for the ability to mimick an other race or class ship. (during worldwar II certain "freighters" where really destoyers used to lure U boats, U boat thinks easy target and surfaces to board, wooden supper structure comes off, no they are starring in to dozens of 10 inch guns). Planetary camoflage. Ability to propell asteriods and use them as weapons in planetary assault (pssst wakeup,.. stop dreaming and get back to work) |
Re: New Features You Would Like to See That Would Have to Be Hard Coded
Two most important things for me:
1. Save start options between games. With a reset to defaults button. 2. Ability to set Starting AND Maximum allowable tech levels for each tech. (which would also be saved like above) Low is fine and High is fine, but Medium just doesn't cut it as it stands. Customization through the GUI rules. |
Re: New Features You Would Like to See That Would Have to Be Hard Coded
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Miles:
Ring Worlds/Sphere Worlds (RW/SW) have almost no reason to exist. It would be nice if they had some additional abilities... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Been thinking about this. The Modders could provide plenty of reasons to build RW/SW if you could put the right requirements into a facility. For example: 0) If tiny planet=1, small=2,...,RW=6,SW=7. It would be nice if you could specify that a facility had to be on a 6 or bigger. 1) It would be nice if you could specify how many of a family of facilities could be present on a given world. This way you could create a family of super-duper facilities and require the player to build a different RW/SW for each one. 2) Finally, the Modders need some more effects that they can bind to a facility. My current favorite new effects would be if they could bind some of the 'Advanced Traits' to a facility. These are all empire-wide effects that are only available at game setup. Hopefully, it would not be too much work to allow a modder to add these effects to a facility. So, suppose that you didn't pick 'Propulsion Experts' at empire setup. Late in the game you could research to the end of the Propulsion research and get the 'Empire-Wide Go-Juice' facility. Then you could build a RW to host it. Miles |
Re: New Features You Would Like to See That Would Have to Be Hard Coded
Someone had mentioned this before, but I'd like to be able to click on enemy ships / planets in the galaxy screen and see their components (if you had previously ID'd them before).
KiloOhm |
Re: New Features You Would Like to See That Would Have to Be Hard Coded
Saner armor and engine systems!!
As they work now, they make no sense!! Pop six Ion Engines I in a 150KT escort and it has a movement of 6. Put the same 6 engines in a 600KT Battle Cruiser and it also moves 6!! Worse yet, to restrict the movement of BBs and up you're limited in the number of engines you can have. This actually leaves more space for other components, when a DN should have to use at least a 100KT of its mass allotment just to move 3 (with Ion Engines). The engines should be rated with the ability to move y-mass x-squares, with less mass meaning you move farther, more mass you move less. It sure would be fun (and make sense) to have little escort class scouts really zipping around the map. As for the armor, the same thing applies. One armor provides the same protection to an escort that it does to a DN. It should be each ship size should have a min number of armor to cover that size ship. 1 armor for an escort up to 9 for a base ship. Then the calculation for whether a shot hits the armor could be based on the percentage of the armor coverage the ship carries, which of course could be reduced in combat. Add in the suggestion that many have made that emissive armor should actually reduce damage by 10-30 points, and you have an armor system that makes sense. Especially with properly working emissive armor. As for difficulty in programming this, I'm a programmer myself and watching a game play you get an idea how the coding probably goes for certain routines. I even wrote some psuedo-code (not sure what language SE IV is written in) for the armor changes just for my own amusement. It ended up being fairly simple so I might share them with MM in the hopes it would be implemented. |
Re: New Features You Would Like to See That Would Have to Be Hard Coded
Re: jaylord's suggestions about armor -
Rather than setting a minimum amount of armor for each size, how about making armor's ability to absorb damage a percentage of the hull tonnage? i.e.: 1 Armor I component = +10% 1 Armor I on an Escort = 15kT damage 1 Armor I on a Frigate = 20kT damage etc. ------------------ Cap'n Q [This message has been edited by capnq (edited 08 March 2001).] |
Re: New Features You Would Like to See That Would Have to Be Hard Coded
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>'Empire-Wide Go-Juice' facility.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Perhaps it takes up 75 Facility slots? That would make it really expensive (ie. cost of the sphereworld/ringworld) <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Saner armor and engine systems!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Definitely, emissive armor needs to be like in SE3, (Reflects the FIRST Xpoints of damage) As for needing X armor components to cover a ship, just think of it being spread really thin. One armor (40 hp) on a DN is worthless defensively, when you have 2000 shields. Consider: two escorts fighting with one weapon each. That armor takes two hits & so Lasts 3 rounds (without perfect accuracy) If we had DNs instead, the armor would be destroyed by the first hit (large mount) and the DN would proceed to fire three or four more large mount shots into you. The same amount of armor is useless on DNs ------------------ Solution for the engine problem: Set the engine components to provide 150 normal (not bonus) movement points. Now, set each hull to require its mass in engines per move. Thus, an escort would require 150 engines per move. While a destroyer requires 300 engines per move. So, four engines on an escort (4x150 movement) gives 600 movement points. Since the escort requires 150 engines per move, It ends up with 600/150 = 4 movement points. On a destroyer those 4 engines & 600 points are divided by 300 engines per move, and 600/300 = 2 movement. Thus, the destroyer, at twice the mass move at half the speed, using the same number of engines. ------------------------------- I would like an option to auto-launch space units into orbit, so they don't clutter up my planet & I don't have to micromanage I would also REALLY like shields to stack properly. Mixing phased and normal should give you TWO separate layers of shields, not one non-phased shield layer |
Re: New Features You Would Like to See That Would Have to Be Hard Coded
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by suicide_junkie:
'Empire-Wide Go-Juice' facility. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> >Perhaps it takes up 75 Facility slots? That would make it really expensive (ie. cost >of the sphereworld/ringworld) That would do nicely. I have only seen facilities use 1 facility slot. If you could enforce this, you could create a 'super-duper' facility and balance the costs and the effects. Miles |
Re: New Features You Would Like to See That Would Have to Be Hard Coded
Code so that you can make settings in ComponentEnhancement.txt to make heavier armor for various size ships. That would make armor a little more 'sane' IMHO.
Also something so you can make weapon mounts for seeker weapons that affect the seekers. ------------------ -- "What do -you- want?" "I'd like to live -just- long enough to be there when they cut off your head and stick it on a pike as a warning to the next ten generations that some favors come with too high a price. I would look up into your lifeless eyes and wave like this..." *waggle* "...can you and your associates arrange that for me, Mr. Morden?" |
Re: New Features You Would Like to See That Would Have to Be Hard Coded
I would like to see the victory conditions modified so each race could pick their own victory. One race might pick to just survive, one might pick a high score etc. There would have to be some minimum numbers and you should also have to meet your conditon for a set number of turns in a row, unless of course you pick conquer them all!
|
Re: New Features You Would Like to See That Would Have to Be Hard Coded
I would like to be able to filter out all planets that are not in systems that I claim when I am searching for planets to colonize and a settign to inforce that the Minister colonizes all my moons and planets before sending ships to other unclaimed systems.
|
Re: New Features You Would Like to See That Would Have to Be Hard Coded
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>weapon mounts for seeker weapons<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You can already make a seeker mount, just copy an existing mount and change the setting from "direct-fire" to "seeker" NOTE: as of 1.27b, the extending range mounts was messed up for seekers, in that the missiles could be fired from extended range but would still fizzle after moving their original range. Changing that same setting from "direct-fire" to "none" will allow you to mount armor, but unfortunately, also allow you to mount your bridge/engines/shields/everything. Making things larger is probably not in your best interests for anything other than armor though... it could work. ------------------ Lots of good ideas, everybody. I think I'll add that armor mount thing to my mod. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif |
Re: New Features You Would Like to See That Would Have to Be Hard Coded
The one problem with modding seekers is that the damage seems to be hard coded. You can mod the missle mount to be 1/2 size and the mount says half damage but the seeker itself does normal damage (fun for strengthing missle races). Same for extending the ranges, the mount may go that far, but the actual seeker will not. At least as of 1.27b (but I could be wrong, these are just my observations) http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif
------------------ "The Empress took your name away," said Chance. Owen smiled coldly. "It wasn't hers to take. I'm a Deathstalker until I die. And we never forget a slight or an enemy." -Owen Deathstalker. |
Re: New Features You Would Like to See That Would Have to Be Hard Coded
The #1 thing I'd like to see changed, which would require hard-coded, is to do something about the current inability to stop your "allies" from colonizing in your systems (short of breaking the treaty & declaring war). This, in effect, ruins the diplomacy system for me because I never agree to anything higher than non-intercourse. My suggestion for the simplest way to fix this would be the following changes:
1) You can’t colonize, invade or remote mine a planet (or asteroid belt) in any system you have not claimed. 2) You can't claim a system already claimed by another race with which you have contact, unless you are at war with the previous claimant (or in that nebulous "no treaty" state that exists from first contact until you either go to war or form a treaty). 3) Replace the option "automatically claim any system colonized" with "automatically claim any system explored", but this would not violate #2. 4) If you agree to a treaty without resolving all conflicting system claims, both sides can act as if it is their system, on a "first come" basis for each individual system body (remote mining in progress would prevent colonization by another race). However, in such contested systems a "no peace beyond the line" state would exist- combat would not be initiated if you move into a sector containing ships/colonies belonging to your "roomie", but you could use the "attack" button to initiate combat manually (only in contested systems) no matter what treaty exists. Such combat in contested systems would cause less AI anger than normal (i.e. undeclared limited war). 5) If the other race agrees to "give" you the system, that means they abandon their claim to it (as now), but they can't reclaim it later (except while at war with you) as they usually do now, plus it means IMMEDIATELY abandoning all colonies they have not agreed to give to you. 6) Mines would detonate on any race's ships unless they have a Military Alliance or better with the mine owner, so that mines can be used to protect your interests in contested systems. [This message has been edited by Barnacle Bill (edited 09 March 2001).] |
Re: New Features You Would Like to See That Would Have to Be Hard Coded
Make the mine Groups have a setting for exactly who they will detonate for. So, you would be able to disable your mines for your partner, but leave them up for somebody who you have only a trade alliance with.
You could also turn them off for an "at war" race, so you don't waste them on single ships. |
Re: New Features You Would Like to See That Would Have to Be Hard Coded
I would like to see additional victroy points added for captured/destroyed ships and points given for each turn you survive, ideally with a racial trait multiplier. This would give Nomad,Pirate and other non-empire type races a way to win while staying within their racial style.
|
Re: New Features You Would Like to See That Would Have to Be Hard Coded
I would like "Range Error" fixed once and for all. I thought the new patch was to take care of it. I was playing 1.27B and was in battle for my main planet, when "Range Error"
showed up "again"..... I didn't download 1.30 yet because of my ex-current game... |
Re: New Features You Would Like to See That Would Have to Be Hard Coded
New ideias / concepts / problems in / for SE4 (1.30):
In the creation of galaxy: random size and type New tech: Stabilize planet core Restore Star nucleus Expand Warp (remove problems that damage ships) Universal colony MineFactory (to place in a ship and make mines) FighterFactory SatelliteFactory New Keys All the windows must have a key to each option example strategic/tactical (S/T) In the tactical combat if you start with fighters outside carriers they are reported, otherwise not ->fix In the Empire options, add the directives for ministers: minimum nº troops p/planet (ships don't remove above that number, and the minister try to build up to it) type of ship priority to build (attack / colony / etc) mines in all waypoints satellites in all waypoints create defense stations In the Ship designs menu add: Info about the maintenance of the design Ship / unit can be build by minister Maximun number in service of this design (the minister don't build more) In the ships/units menu add: Ships of class xxx upgrade to class yyy mothball unmothball scrap All Ships AI controled (on/off) If units, units of class xxx scrap In the planets menu add: change all planets type xxx to type yyy Change the Ship Construction minister : Generic Ship Colony Ship Units If you have the flag 'Automatically use Individual Ministers for newly built vehicles', it must include the ships captured or that join you (race surrender / crew insurrection) If a race surrender to you and have techs that you can't (cristal) you can't research it but can build the itens that they have discovered (if surrender to you, they give you the blueprints) Also, the blueprints of units/ships they have designed must be acessible (surrender disigns window) Add the system's Minister Manage the creation of system's wide facilities (like urban pacification center) If exist duplications of SWF in a system, remove redundant. If a planet in the system is rioting / angry, call / build troops or UPC. The troops minister must have the capability to send troops to rioting planets When you are asked about enter in combat, show info about your/enemy forces for better call. If you have one (or more) colonies whitout pop, send the pop transporters to drop in that colonies. Don't send mov orders to construction ships that are building, this generate desnecessary error windows. In the construction queue, add a check if you try to build more units than the planet can get. Also add the line 'up to max cargo avaiable' (like the one 'one turn worth'). The minister responsible to build units must have a check control before trying to build more units in a planet than is possible. If i send order to 10 ships to retrofit on a planet and in that turn only can retrofit 3 the others forget the order. The retrofit rotine, must take in consideration that exist ships with cargo and add the capability of removing it temporary (if exist avaiable space in the sector) Add the capability of the Ships that can close warp points to only do it to warps with possibility to damage ships (else is too dangerous to asign a minister). If you put a fighter bay in a ship (you can put it in all), it only have use if the ship is of design type carrier, otherwise the ministers igore it. If i put a cargo bay in a carrier (to add more fighters), the minister start to load generic cargo. Is possible to stop this ? If i build a ship that have minelayer capability / large cargo / shipyard , is possible to add a flag for that shipyard only build mines ? If i build a ship that have satlayer capability / large cargo / shipyard , is possible to add a flag for that shipyard only build satellites ? Is possible to add 'netmouse / scrollmouse' support ? In some games, the minister insist in building small / older models of weapons platforms (even obsolet ones). Add the capability for the AI to build Starbases at warppoints. |
Re: New Features You Would Like to See That Would Have to Be Hard Coded
mac, in a program as complex as SE4, there are probably a couple hundred possibilities that can cause a range error. Anything that's been modded at all has the potential to break something else that you'd never expect. If you can get the error to occur consistently in the same situation, try to get save games from before it happens, and send them in with a bug report.
------------------ Cap'n Q [This message has been edited by capnq (edited 11 March 2001).] |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:27 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.