some suggestions - please discuss
 

Here are some suggestions I would like to send to MM, but before doing so you may want to give one or two comments, won't you ??

1) Sats in combat view
Make them deploy equally devided in 4 Groups at the "corner" of the planet/warppoint like that.

2) Armor
Take standard armor away from "Chemistry I" and add it to "Construction I", so the AI can armor ships as soon as it can build some (50000points Chemistry and 5000 Points Armor are not worth it, especially as Shields cost the very same)

2b) use of "Chemistry I"
.. make it requirement for "explosive warheads" (makes much more sense than for "titanium armor" IMHO)


3) weapon sub-types
There are some weapon types which have certain sub-types (e.g. shield depleting weapons), where the Last weapon of the first subtype has _much superiour_ range than the first weapon of the -supposedly- advanced technology.
But having the range advantage is essential - a ship with a range of 6 (Shield Depleter V) is almost invulnarable to a ship with range 1 (Shield Disruptor I).
As the AI uses latest tech on it's designs, it's most vulnerable at certain moments this way.
Why not "mix" the subtypes, e.g. make Shield Disruptor available after Shield Depleter I or II ?


4) Missiles
Add +2 to all missile ranges at least - this stresses the "stand-off" effect of missile ships much more and makes combat more interesting (at least that's what my testing showed to me).


5) PD Missiles
The PD missiles would need enough range and superiour speed to intercept incoming missiles targeted at _other_ ships . maybe movement +2 will do; damage should enshure kills (on equal tech level), possible target would be "missiles only" .. fighters have a hard enough time to get through the PD cannon cover, and are limited in amount, while missles have little ammo restraints.


6) QuadrantType
Setting "Min Angle Between WP := 40" makes maps far more interesting (and complicated) than the chessboard type maps which are generated with "60" (test showed that 45..60 don't make real any difference)


7) Top (Info) Bar on Main Screen
Show not only ressources but research/intel points there too


8) "next ship" button
"next ship" button should skip ships which have minister control turned on, no matter if they have movement remaining or not.


9) Minister orders
Ministers should issue "complete" order .. e.g. "go to SolIV, load pop, go to SolI, drop pop", so the ship moves along that path instead of halting at SolIV, loading, and moving on next turn.


10) Supply Minister
Supply Minister should either be "individual minister" or shouldn't touch fleets which have movement orders.


11) Mines/Sat Minister
When dropping mines/satellites at a warp point, it should be checked if there's already such a field on _either_ side of the warppoint, and the mines/sats added to it instead of a second field created (maybe up to a certain size..).

Thanks for any constructive criticism.

A.

Re: some suggestions - please discuss
 

I like chemistry being a prereq for armor, since I think it makes sense. Chemistry being a prereq for explosive warheads also makes sense although explosive warheads is given at startup (why I don't know). Currently armor is still a better deal than shields for smaller ships and at the beginning of the game. Level 3 armor is cheaper research wise and resource wise, offers more protection and is more flexible is smaller ships than shields. The problem with the AI not using armor is in the research files, armor not being included or included after shields, and in the ship design files.

As far as the graphic interface I have one suggestion. When you hit the display colony button, it lists all colonies. When you select a colony it takes you to the build queue - both excellent features. However, I would also like a goto map feature. What I build is sometimes determined by the location, and I don't memorize the location of all the systems. So either from the colony screen, or the planet build queue, I would appreciate a goto map button to center the map on that planet.

Re: some suggestions - please discuss
 

Boost WMG range: it's got the damage factor of missiles, but has only 1 more range than a APB. It should be more like halfway between missiles & beams.

Re: some suggestions - please discuss
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jourin:
As far as the graphic interface I have one suggestion. When you hit the display colony button, it lists all colonies. When you select a colony it takes you to the build queue - both excellent features. However, I would also like a goto map feature. What I build is sometimes determined by the location, and I don't memorize the location of all the systems. So either from the colony screen, or the planet build queue, I would appreciate a goto map button to center the map on that planet.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ISTR that the default for the "Display Colonies" window is to go to the planet location when you left-click on the colony. Default for the "Construction Queues" window is to call up the build queue when you left-click on a colony.

What I don't like is that the game doesn't remember where you were in the list when you go to a location. If I'm updating multiple colonies, I have to remember where I was in the list and scroll back down to that location every time I call up the window.

Re: some suggestions - please discuss
 

Director Tsaarx

I think you mean right click for planet display - thanks I was not aware. I also realize that a map is shown, and I can use that for reference. I would just like to goto the planet location from that screen, instead of closing and then finding that system. It is just a minor irritation. I also agree that I would like the interface to remember my location instead of scrolling the list again. Both of these are real minor irritations and I have experienced worse from other games.

Re: some suggestions - please discuss
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DirectorTsaarx:
ISTR that the default for the "Display Colonies"
What I don't like is that the game doesn't remember where you were in the list when you go to a location. If I'm updating multiple colonies, I have to remember where I was in the list and scroll back down to that location every time I call up the window.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Here.....Here..... SE3 would "remeber" where It was on long dat screens I have a hard time remembering myself http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif

Re: some suggestions - please discuss
 

Whenever a warp point is created (either by yourself or the AI), it's starting location is displayed but not it's destination in the log report at the end of a turn.

tic



[This message has been edited by tictoc (edited 26 March 2001).]

Re: some suggestions - please discuss
 

This is what Director Tsaarx said, and he is correct. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

From the Colonies screen(F5):
* left click - Goto main screen with colony selected
* right click - Show info on colony

From the Construction Queue screen(F7)
* left click - Goto build queue screen for this colony
* right click - Show info on colony

He didn't mention what happens when you right click. But I included it for reference.

I agree about the game not remembering where you are in ANY of the lists in the game. This is my number one pet peeve.

Re: some suggestions - please discuss
 

Yes, this would be very convenient. Finding your place in the colony or ship list after processing a planet/ship/base is an annoying problem. if the game kept it's place from you're Last visit things would be much easier.

Re: some suggestions - please discuss
 

IMO-Increasing missile range is bad. It leaves seekers exposed to even more time to be hit by PDC. The next patch increases seeker weapon speeds, this helps alot with the seekers being outran too easily by the target ship and the PDC shooting too many times before the seekers reach their targets.

I have been testing a mod for weapon platforms. The increased range modifier that is seen on base weapon mounts, is on my weapon platform mounts. I dont include the "to hit" bonus though. This makes researching large weapon platforms more attractive, and for the first time taking a planet is a damn nasty task. The hell bore V with a Massive mount is plain scarey. range 14 damage 200. WMG are very nasty too range 14 damage 700.

Thing is though they dont hit that often at that outer range, but the threat of being tagged is there when you start your missile bombardment of the AIs planet!

[This message has been edited by AJC (edited 27 March 2001).]

[This message has been edited by AJC (edited 27 March 2001).]

Re: some suggestions - please discuss
 

Perhaps there should be a low-signature missile available -- say, with adequate Cloaking tech, new missiles are allowed that have defense bonuses, with the idea that knowledge of how to cloak entire ships can be applied to reducing heat/radar/etc signatures on missiles. Alternately, allow a wide-area ECM Overloader that provides a fair defense bonus to *all* friendlies (and maybe hostiles, as well) by trying to fool sensors into perceiving hordes of fake contacts (thus, hopefully, confusing targetting systems).

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

Re: some suggestions - please discuss
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>1) Sats in combat view
Make them deploy equally devided in 4 Groups at the "corner" of the planet/warppoint like that.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd prefer 8 Groups, myself; I think that would put them close enough together to give each other covering fire.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>2) Armor
Take standard armor away from "Chemistry I" and add it to "Construction I", so the AI can armor ships as soon as it can build some (50000points Chemistry and 5000 Points Armor are not worth it, especially as Shields cost the very same)

2b) use of "Chemistry I"
.. make it requirement for "explosive warheads" (makes much more sense than for "titanium armor" IMHO)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I interpret Chemistry leading to Armor as research into exotic alloys that are stronger than the normal construction materials.

I think Explosive Warheads should stay available at start with no prerequisites. We figured out how to make explosives centuries before we could manage space flight.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>3) weapon sub-types
4) Missiles
5) PD Missiles<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The "proper" balance between the various weapons, armor, and shields is the subject of so much discussion on these Boards, I don't think there will ever be a consensus on how to change it. Better to leave it for people to mod to personal taste as it is now.

[This message has been edited by capnq (edited 27 March 2001).]

Re: some suggestions - please discuss
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The "proper" balance between the various weapons, armor, and shields is the subject of so much discussion on these Boards, I don't think there will ever be a consensus on how to change it. Better to leave it for people to mod to personal taste as it is now<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

All he was suggesting is that point-defence not nessesarily be only beam weapons.

Interceptor missiles would be cool, and could easily parallel most of the PDC stats (damage factor, size), adding some range (so they have time to start moving before enemy impact) and high speed.

Right now PD is pretty bland, with only one weapon research thread. It could (and has been in mods) fleshed out to include:
- normal
- Extra Range + low damage
- Short range + higher damage
- Seeker PD
- Armor PD (range 1, single shot per battle)
- Field PD (small damages to all enemies in range each turn) [Note: can't be modded needs new ability- but would be really cool]

Some of these could be included in the official game.

Can there be any friendly-fire weapons??? That whole area has been neglected. What about a shield-recharging beam to help a ship in need? EM scambler to help a nearby friend avoid fire?

Anyways, its almost morning & I'm tired, so good night (morning?) Whatever.

Re: some suggestions - please discuss
 

this thread has wandered off topic a bit, but here's an idea on the PDC:

two types of Point defense: PDC and PDMissles.

PDC can no longer target seekers.
PDM can only target seekers.

This way, you have to make a choice: do i defend well against missles and hope i don't see fighters, go half and half (prolly not a good idea), or defend against fighters and hope i don't get missles shot at me.

But I must say, what pagan gods are you guys worshiping that can tell you what _will_ be in the next patch? I haven't heard anything about increased seeker speed in the next patch. Last I heard it was pretty much just the Map editor and that was about it.

------------------
May your Life prosper and your Dreams be sweet.

Re: some suggestions - please discuss
 

Dumbluck:
"But I must say, what pagan gods are you guys worshiping that can tell you what _will_ be in the next patch?"

I call him Richard and he said:

"14. Changed - Increased all seeker speeds by 1 (thanks to AJCaton)."

The god descended from heaven and posted it right here on this board.

Thanks AJCaton.

Re: some suggestions - please discuss
 

hopefully the change in speed will make everyone happy -
anyone else try the weapon mount change on weapon platforms? This is the modification i am testing now.

in the \data\CompEnhancement.txt make a change to the "Range Modifier" from "0" on the following mounts....

Long Name := Large Weapon Platform Mount
Short Name := Large Mount
Description := Larger sized weapon mount which increases damage from the weapon by 2 times. Increases the range of the weapon by 2. Requires a platform of at least 200kT. Can only be used on Direct Fire weapons.
Code := L
Cost Percent := 150
Tonnage Percent := 150
Tonnage Structure Percent := 200
Damage Percent := 200
Supply Percent := 200
Range Modifier := 2
Weapon To Hit Modifier := 0
Vehicle Size Minimum := 200
Weapon Type Requirement := Direct Fire
Vehicle Type := Weapon Platform

Long Name := Heavy Weapon Platform Mount
Short Name := Heavy Mount
Description := Heavy sized weapon mount which increases damage from the weapon by 3 times. Increases the range of the weapon by 4. Requires a platform of at least 400kT. Can only be used on Direct Fire weapons.
Code := H
Cost Percent := 200
Tonnage Percent := 200
Tonnage Structure Percent := 300
Damage Percent := 300
Supply Percent := 300
Range Modifier := 4
Weapon To Hit Modifier := 0
Vehicle Size Minimum := 400
Weapon Type Requirement := Direct Fire
Vehicle Type := Weapon Platform

Long Name := Massive Weapon Platform Mount
Short Name := Massive Mount
Description := Massive sized weapon mount which increases damage from the weapon by 5 times. Increases the range of the weapon by 6. Requires a platform of at least 600kT. Can only be used on Direct Fire weapons.
Code := M
Cost Percent := 300
Tonnage Percent := 300
Tonnage Structure Percent := 500
Damage Percent := 500
Supply Percent := 500
Range Modifier := 6
Weapon To Hit Modifier := 0
Vehicle Size Minimum := 600
Weapon Type Requirement := Direct Fire
Vehicle Type := Weapon Platform


[This message has been edited by AJC (edited 27 March 2001).]

Re: some suggestions - please discuss
 

IMO Seekers are incredibly hard to balance because they tend to be 'all or nothing' weapons. At the beginning of the game, they are almighty. Missile armed ships can easily sweep away superior numbers and sizes of gun armed ships.

A bit farther up the tree, PD weapons completely eclipse missiles. They become nearly useless. A few DD class ships maxxed out with PD weapons and most seekers are KO'ed with ease.

So, what you have is a weapon that either overpowered or useless depending on how the game flows and who researches what. How are you supposed to actually 'balance' that?

In my set, I actually reduced seeker ranges and increased their costs at the lower end. Once investment in the tech is made, the higher level missiles are more and more unpleasant. I did this is in attempt to maintain some sort of balance between research spent on missiles and research spent on PD weapons.

Finally, the balance is easily disrupted by the way the AI functions. It will never 'respond' to heavy missile use by building dedicated PD ships. All it has is what it is scripted to have. A player will adapt to the enemy's designs while the AI cannot. This exaggerates the problem even further.

So, IMO, there is no 'right' answer. All you can do is play with what feels right to you. Maybe once (if) TCP/IP play is possible, more games between human players will be possible (and using tactical combat). When that happens, perhaps a better sense of 'balance' will show itself.

Thanx,
Talenn

Re: some suggestions - please discuss
 

Perhaps that's the points. Seekers simply become obsolete. Of course, if they are obsolete do to PD ships, and so no seeker ships are built, then people might not build PD ships any more, allowing seekers to become more useful.

I tend to use missles as ablative armor for my fighters. Fire volley's of missles to absorb the PD attacks, and send the fighters in after. It helps a bit.

Re: some suggestions - please discuss
 

If you want the missiles to have a better defence against PD then just incease their damage before destroyed limit up for higher tech weapons.