Psst, over here, I got the latest patch status... shhhh
 

Version 1.45:
1. Changed - In the beta patch Version, the startup message will not be
displayed if the -nd command line option is used.
2. Note - Medical Bays will cure plagues on your planets or planets of
your allies (Military Alliance or better).
3. Added - A delay factor to Settings.txt to slow down the movement of
ships on the System Window.
4. Added - A new set of fonts by Andrés Lescano which add international
character support to the existing fonts.
5. Fixed - AI Research will now follow the "Tech Area Min Percent".
6. Fixed - Ruins were not being placed if the map was generated in the
Game Setup window.
7. Added - The System Gravitational Shield now prevents warp points closing
within the system. This prevents warp points closing into or
out of the system by all players (including you!).
8. Fixed - You should be able to view and clear the orders of minefields or
satellite Groups.
9. Fixed - Self-Destruct of satellites and mines was not working in simultaneous
turn games.
10. Fixed - A log message should be generated when a ship self-destructs or is
fired on and destroyed.
11. Fixed - Resource Production and Space Combat racial modifiers were not working
correctly.


Version 1.44:
1. Fixed - The command line option to use a Mod Path was not working.
2. Added - Access to the Autosave options under the main Options window.
3. Fixed - Intelligence Window would ask if you wanted to delete a blank
intelligence project.
4. Fixed - Screen wouldn't refresh after a Surrender message was sent.
5. Added - The System Gravitational Shield now prevents warp point opening
within the system. This prevents warp point opening into or
out of the system by all players (including you!).
6. Fixed - Ships were not showing up in the correct portion of the combat map
at the start of combat.
7. Fixed - Neutral players would sometimes leave their home systems.
8. Fixed - Unit Groups would display their shields and hit points incorrectly
at times during combat. Now, unit Groups will only show their
maximum hit points and maximum shields during combat for the units
that are alive.

Version 1.43:
1. Fixed - Problem with multiplayer data file verification.
2. Added - Added more message during a simultaneous game explaining why a ship
did not launch or recover its units.
3. Fixed - Problem where the Designs Window would error upon loading.
4. Fixed - A neutral on a planet which picked a specific style would cause an
error if that style was not present when the game was loaded.
5. Fixed - If an event caused a planet to explode, then sometimes an error would
be generated.
6. Fixed - Sometimes the next player in a hotseat game could give orders to the
previous player's ships.
7. Changed - The AI ministers controlling a human player will never surrender.
8. Fixed - Sometimes the game would not ask you if you wanted to attack when
your ships moved into the same square as enemy ships.
9. Changed - Spaced out large Groups of ships in combat a bit more when starting.
10. Fixed - General speedups for combat.
11. Fixed - Sometimes your ships would not fire on a planet because you had a troop
transport present carrying troops but it didn't have the Capture Planet
order.

Version 1.42:
1. Fixed - Crashing bug when processing a simultaneous game turn.
2. Added - Flag to use the old style of Log Political Message display. Some people
experienced the problem that their screen would go crazy when a political
message was displayed in the Log Window. Usually, changing the screen
resolution, color depth, or installing new drivers would fix the problem.
But in case they don't, we added this flag so that those players could
change the setting "Use Old Log Political Message Display" in the Settings.txt
file to TRUE. This will display communication message in the old manner
with no possiblity of scrolling the message.
3. Fixed - Crashing bug when a warp point had already been closed and another ship
tried to close it with the same orders in a simultaneous game.
4. Fixed - Simultaneous Game: Combat would often occur too many times. Now it will only
occur one per sector per phase if a ship executed orders in that location.
5. Fixed - After a ship with a spaceyard was retrofitted to not have a spaceyard,
sometimes its construction details would still show on its report.
6. Fixed - Emissive armor should be working correctly now.
7. Fixed - Sometimes the combat replay would fail if a star was involved.
8. Fixed - Simultaneous Game: Colonizers at the same location would not follow orders
to colonize given in the Planets window.
9. Fixed - Simultaneous Game: The Planet window does not need to close when giving
colonize orders.
10. Changed - Added text to the Scrap window stating that ships in a fleet must be separated
from the fleet before any of the actions can be performed. The list in the
window no longer displays any ships that are in a fleet.
11. Fixed - Sometimes when a colonizer would colonize a planet, not all of the population
in its cargo would be dropped to the planet.
12. Fixed - Simultaneous Game: Adding the "Use Component" order would clear all previous
orders for a ship.
13. Fixed - Simultaneous Game: Using Emergency Propulsion Pods would not always work correctly.
Please note: You want to use the emergency propulsion pods at the beginning of the
turn in a simulatenous game (your first orders before moving). Since these pods
actually increase your speed during phased movement, if you try to use them at the
end, you may not actually get the remaining movement points.
14. Changed - You cannot repair an Emergency Propulsion Pod or an Emergency Resupply Pod without
a space yard being present.
15. Fixed - Problem with AI Design creation where the game would lockup when an AI was trying
to add the desired number of engines to a design but couldn't.
16. Added - Added a message when your counter-intelligence project successfully defeats an
attack. (This attack will cause the progress of the counter-intelligence project
to be put back.)
17. Fixed - All Counter-Intelligence projects were being cleared when an attack came in. So
only the first attack would be defeated, and then all others would get through
that turn.
18. Fixed - A few minor memory leaks.
19. Fixed - Added some protections against multiplayer cheaters.
20. Fixed -


------------------
Sarge is coming...

Richard Arnesen
Director of Covert Ops
Shrapnel Games
http://www.shrapnelgames.com

Re: Psst, over here, I got the latest patch status... shhhh
 

Richard, tks for the update, any possibility of having AI invade planets outside of modded games?

just some ideas mac

Re: Psst, over here, I got the latest patch status... shhhh
 

Thanks for the update. Any word on drones, palaces, space monsters encounters, empire rivalry. I also had an idea that you can set victory conditions to defeat a certain empire.

Re: Psst, over here, I got the latest patch status... shhhh
 

Thanks for the update. Looking sweet http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif.

Re: Psst, over here, I got the latest patch status... shhhh
 

This is great.
The one thing I would like to see is multiple effects for a single event.
that way I could set up events that for example: increase the pop but decrease the mood.

Re: Psst, over here, I got the latest patch status... shhhh
 

Any idea when there will be a release? Just the intel bug alone is so nasty as to warrant a quick patch. It's been a while since the Last one, too.

::sniff:: http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon9.gif

Re: Psst, over here, I got the latest patch status... shhhh
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>7. Added - The System Gravitational Shield now prevents warp points closing
within the system. This prevents warp points closing into or
out of the system by all players (including you!).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is this good?
It has been discused and this way a player can lock himsef in his systems and making his planets invulnerable to conventional attacks and the game unfinishable.

Re: Psst, over here, I got the latest patch status... shhhh
 

Hey, if you don't like a particular feature you can mod the files and remove it! Personally, I am inclined to make the warp point controller a seperate facility from the 'stabilizer' that prevents planet/star destruction so there's more of a price to pay for locking everything down.

The intel fix seems to be working very nicely, btw. I really like the notifications of EACH enemy intel project defeated. Now you can clearly see that one counter-intel project does in fact defeat more than one enemy project.


[This message has been edited by Baron Munchausen (edited 11 October 2001).]

Re: Psst, over here, I got the latest patch status... shhhh
 

Note that it will prevent opening AND closing. You have to choose very carefully what are you doing. If you build a system gravitational facility you will "lock" the current warp point state of that system. This way you can even "catch" warp points. How? Well, if you build a SGF in a system, all warp points are frozen in their current state, that means, no one can close them -not even from the other side!
And you should be careful about closing your warp points and sealing yourself of. The AI will build SFGs and you can very easily lock yourself out from the galaxy in total!

[This message has been edited by [K126]Mephisto (edited 12 October 2001).]

Re: Psst, over here, I got the latest patch status... shhhh
 

That would make for an interesting game.

It will be good to see how this addition changes the game. Static warfare could be back. Too bad you cannot figure out which enemy planets have the device so you can target those planets first.

------------------
Inter arma silent leges

Re: Psst, over here, I got the latest patch status... shhhh
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tesco samoa:
That would make for an interesting game.

It will be good to see how this addition changes the game. Static warfare could be back. Too bad you cannot figure out which enemy planets have the device so you can target those planets first.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uh, you can... It's called Covert Recon, an intel operation that returns a list of facilities on a given planet. Granted, if it's a large system with lots of planets you will have to go 'trial and error' to find the right one, but if you can break through the defenders counter-intel you can eventually find it. Large, well-defended planets seem like a good place to look, of course. Then, you can use the Industrial Sabotage intel operation to attack the planet and you might get lucky and take out the Gravitational facility. There is no way to 'concentrate' counter-intel in a specific area or towards defending against a specific attack, so it's pretty much a question of "luck" for both attacker and defender. So, as long as there is contact with an enemy empire your nifty "Warp Point Lock" is not secure. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

How you would break into a closed group of systems that all have one of these is a good question, though. I guess the key thing to think about is how hard it would be to set this up. They are expensive to build, so you'd need a large empire to afford them. The bigger your empire gets, the more you have to build to completely close it off. It seems likely that someone able to do this is winning the game anyway. Sort of like building a ringworld or sphereworld... http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

[This message has been edited by Baron Munchausen (edited 12 October 2001).]

Re: Psst, over here, I got the latest patch status... shhhh
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
The intel fix seems to be working very nicely, btw. I really like the notifications of EACH enemy intel project defeated. Now you can clearly see that one counter-intel project does in fact defeat more than one enemy project.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Great news, thanx ! http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Psst, over here, I got the latest patch status... shhhh
 

New patch fixes:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Version 1.46:
1. Fixed - Problem where a race style used from a mod directory was
not being used when the game was re-loaded.
2. Changed - Removed the application of the maximum units per player
rule while in combat. This means that you can launch as many
fighters as you like during combat. However, the maximum
units per player rule stilly applies to non-combat unit
launching.
3. Fixed - Wrong description used when scuttling units because of
not paying maintenance.
4. Fixed - Fleet Transfer Window would reset the Vehicles in Sector
window to the top each time a ship was moved.
5. Changed - Decreased the rate at which fleet experience increases.
6. Changed - Decreased the amount of experience gained from killing fighters
and mines.
7. Fixed - Description for Afterburners was not correct.
8. Fixed - You should be able to give colonize orders to a ship even if there
is a population on the planet.
9. Fixed - Population Transport Minister was not taking population to planets
with zero population.
10. Fixed - The Construction Minister would sometimes build troops and weapon
platforms not on a planet.
11. Fixed - AI would sometimes try to attack enemy minefields.
12. Fixed - The AI could sometimes initiate combat against a minefield in a
simultaneous game.
13. Fixed - Ship Groups would sometimes start on top of each other in combat.
14. Fixed - Ground Combat was experiencing some problems with the changes for
one side to hit another.
15. Fixed - Some units would have their statistics changed during a combat
simulation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am sure it's frustrating for everbody waiting on the patch to be released. But hopefully it will make you feel better that the delay is because he is fixking so much. It's not like Aaron is sitting around doing nothing.

The next patch is going to be a big one. Just look at some of the big bugs being squished...

Intel bug. (We all know how bad that one is.)

Cultures. (That's been around forever.)

Mines not self destructing.

Carriers not launching during combat if unit limit reached. That's allowed now. (Gives fighters some use later in games.)

Emmisive Armor.

And a whole bunch more. Should improve our enjoyment of the game greatly.

Geoschmo

Re: Psst, over here, I got the latest patch status... shhhh
 

hey i'm happy to see all this stuff fixed. I'd be willing to trade two more weeks to see drones in there or some other new feature. I've waited this long i can wait a little longer.

Re: Psst, over here, I got the latest patch status... shhhh
 

I am with you chew, I can wait as long as it takes for him to fix thing. I too would like to see some new features added.

Re: Psst, over here, I got the latest patch status... shhhh
 

Warning: RANT AHEAD.
I'm disappointed. I don't see any "biggest-bang-for-the-buck" changes. (See that thread.) I don't understand that, because some of those would be SOOOOO easy to implement, yet would greatly expand the game. Shrapnel is fond of bragging about the thought that goes into their games (and rightly so). But here we have numerous cases where the thinking has been done, the game design notably improved, and the ideas are not implementable for lack of a little bit of coding. I'm beginning to think that Aaron has a "not invented here" attitude.

[edit: Feel free to agree or disagree with this opinion as strongly as you like. I don't mind, as long as you don't get personal. Examples: "this opinion stinks"=OK, "dmm, you stink!"= not OK.]

[This message has been edited by dmm (edited 12 October 2001).]

Re: Psst, over here, I got the latest patch status... shhhh
 

I have to say I would like to know if things like drones, palaces, ect will ever be finally implemented. No one has really come out to say either way.

Re: Psst, over here, I got the latest patch status... shhhh
 

maybe if MM would give us a list of things that they are at least CONSIDERING to include in SE4 we could quell some of our expectations

Re: Psst, over here, I got the latest patch status... shhhh
 

Dmm,

I won't say there aren't features I'd like to see added. Your comments are not out of line. There would be no reason to get personal against you for expressing an opinion. But you need to keep a couple things in mind.

First, just because an idea sounds easy to code, doesn't mean it is easy to code. And even if the feature itself wouldn't take a lot of code to add, it could cause problems with other areas of the program that could take a total rewrite of whole sections to implement them.

Secondly, remember that this isn't Aaron's full time job. Or at least it wasn't Last time I heard. My understanding is that he goes to work and punches a clock just like the rest of us poor slobs, and then comes home to his new wife and still manages to find time to work on SEIV and make improvments. And as well as SEIV is doing, I don't think he makes enough off it to hire a team of programmers like the big boys do.

Lastly, SEIV isn't the only iron in his fire either. He's working on the RPG at least. Maybe SE5 for all we know, although I haven't heard anything about that. I am just guessing.

Personally, I have got a lot more play time out a $35.00 piece of software than I would have any resonable expectation of getting. So I tend towards being satisfied even if there are things I would like to see added at some point in the future.

Geoschmo

Re: Psst, over here, I got the latest patch status... shhhh
 

Perhaps after a year or two (or when some other goal is reached )maybe open source the game. That way if someone wants to code tcpip play into they can. Or something along those lines.

------------------
Inter arma silent leges

Re: Psst, over here, I got the latest patch status... shhhh
 

My disappointment is because it seems as though Aaron is spending his programming time squashing extremely rare bugs rather than adding features (some of which were promised from the get-go).

I've been programming, in a lot of different Languages, for 25 years. I agree with you that some of the "easy" changes that people have asked for are not at all easy. And some "easy" changes would flummox the AI, so those aren't really easy. (Although a simple on/off flag fixes that problem.) But one doesn't need access to the code to know that some suggested changes would indeed be easy. It's just obvious (to any experienced programmer, that is).

People have been asking: why is it dead around here? The answer is: what's the point of discussing ideas for improvements and new features when the only thing that patches have been doing is fixing bugs?

My advice to Aaron is: spend a little bit of time putting in a few easy new features, and watch the excitement soar!

Re: Psst, over here, I got the latest patch status... shhhh
 

BTW, is anything happening with the unit groupings problem (all sats forming one stack, rather than scattered defensively around a planet)?

We really should have a formation or cluster size setting for Groups of units.

Re: Psst, over here, I got the latest patch status... shhhh
 

I would like to see the ablity to add more planet types. Argon is in the files but can not be used.

Re: Psst, over here, I got the latest patch status... shhhh
 

Yes, argon planets would be awesome. BTW, what type of planet does comp_109 colonize?
It appears to be a gas giant colony floating over an asteroid!?

I too would like to see new added features in each patch, esp. component tech. IMO, MM needs to finish fighter weapons, as they are largely incomplete.

Re: Psst, over here, I got the latest patch status... shhhh
 

Not Argon. It's a "noble" gas -- inert. Kinda hard to base life chemistry on that. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif Let's have CHLORINE back. Now there is an interesting atmosphere. No need to add extra planet images, either. I think many of the green "Carbon Dioxide" plamets look like chlorine worlds, anyway. Just reserve the brown worlds for CO2 and change the green ones to chlorine.

Re: Psst, over here, I got the latest patch status... shhhh
 

I am glad to hear that the Intel bugfix seems to be working OK. But I never understood in the first place how counterintel was *supposed* to work...could anybody please explain to me how it works now?

Re: Psst, over here, I got the latest patch status... shhhh
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dragonlord:
I am glad to hear that the Intel bugfix seems to be working OK. But I never understood in the first place how counterintel was *supposed* to work...could anybody please explain to me how it works now?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This was recently posted in SE4@yahooGroups.com
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>--- In SE4@y..., e.kolis@j... wrote:
&gt; Does level X counter-intel block only level X intel ops or level X
and
&gt; below? (So you would need all 3 levels running to block all enemy
intel?)
&gt; And it doesn't seem right that if you're spending 50,000 intel
points a
&gt; turn on counter-intel that it should have the same effect (total
blockage
&gt; of all enemy intel) as if you were spending 1,000... that would make
&gt; intel way too WEAK!

It's a bit more complicated than that. As far as anyone can figure
out, based on actual game play and answers from Malfador, is that:

1) Counter-intelligence at any level can block intel ops of any level.

2) Blocking an intelligence project is based on points spent on
counter-intelligence vs. points spent on the intel project. For
example, if you have 10,000 points built up in a counter-intelligence
project, you can block an intel project that costs 10,000 points or
less. (Those 10,000 points of counter-intel may be able to block an
intel project that costs 12,000 points or less; there's an entry in
settings.txt that implies there's a 20% bonus on counter-intel).

3) If you "finish" a counter-intelligence project (i.e., spend all
100,000 points or whatever the cost is), without having to block an
intel project (either because no-one's using intel against you or
because they haven't completed the project yet), the counter-intel
project "fails".

The intent of the higher-level counterintelligence ops is to let you
build up more counter-intelligence points, which (in theory) should
let you block more intel projects. It also gives you a longer period
of protection, since you probably won't have enough points built up in
counter-intelligence to block an intel project for the first few turns
of spending on a counter-intel project.

Does that help answer your questions?


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Re: Psst, over here, I got the latest patch status... shhhh
 

Not really....sorry http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon9.gif
That part of the info I already knew.
But, (after patch) if I have a CI project III running with say 200k points stored up, and I get hit by multiple intel offenses (say 5) worth 180k, will all be stopped? And if so will I then have 20k points left, or 0?
If I think I have enough CI points stored, can I then stop adding points to CI (to avoid "completing" the project) and sorta keep it around on layaway until it's needed?
If so...if you can get an early lead in intel production you could store up say 2 M points in a few CI-3 projects and then forget about CI...

Same example: if I have 200k in one CI project and I get hit by 6 attacks totaling 220k, then only the Last attack gets through right?

Re: Psst, over here, I got the latest patch status... shhhh
 

I too would appreciate new features like drones very much. But I think the bug fix has priority and the new patch will indeed fix some very important bugs IMO. Let's try to be patient and hope the new features will come one day too.

Re: Psst, over here, I got the latest patch status... shhhh
 

My understanding is that you will stop all 5 projects and have 20k left. At least so it seems in my AI games.
But AFAIR you have to keep your projects funded or they will not work. You cannot build a CI and stop giving it support without losing the effect. But you can come back and pick up support if you want any time.


[This message has been edited by [K126]Mephisto (edited 13 October 2001).]

Re: Psst, over here, I got the latest patch status... shhhh
 

IMHO I think we won't see very much new features in the game until SE5. Some things are just to much work to code them and make them work properly without breaking the rest of the game (in terms of bugs AND play balance). But you should all remember that the history.txt does not contain all fixed bugs. In the latest patch Aaron has fixed 12 of my 14 reported bugs, many of them will improve the AI significantly.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Q:
I too would appreciate new features like drones very much. But I think the bug fix has priority and the new patch will indeed fix some very important bugs IMO. Let's try to be patient and hope the new features will come one day too.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Re: Psst, over here, I got the latest patch status... shhhh
 

3. Fixed - Crashing bug when a warp point had already been closed and another ship
tried to close it with the same orders in a simultaneous game.

Does this mean its only fixed for simultaneous games? I've been having problems with it in the trun based also.

Re: Psst, over here, I got the latest patch status... shhhh
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by [K126]Mephisto:
IMHO I think we won't see very much new features in the game until SE5. Some things are just to much work to code them and make them work properly without breaking the rest of the game (in terms of bugs AND play balance). But you should all remember that the history.txt does not contain all fixed bugs. In the latest patch Aaron has fixed 12 of my 14 reported bugs, many of them will improve the AI significantly.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please list the changes you have verified? I'd like to know how the AI is progressing. Have any useful changes been made in the meaning of settings in the AI files? Especially, does AI_Construction_Vehicles use ship name/class rather than ship type yet?

Re: Psst, over here, I got the latest patch status... shhhh
 

I’m sorry, the calling of ships instead of ship classes is not implemented. The changes are more subtle but will nevertheless have great impact on the AI. I have extensively tested this. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

Here are some of these changes:

1.) There was a problem with the counting of spaceborn units that did sent the AI in a production loop (if it was producing satellites, that is).

2.) “Do not move through minefield”-line. This line will prevent the AI from sending ship after ship into a known minefield. It was there for a long time but could not be used as the AI would not send minesweepers into the minefield either.

3.) Further minesweepers were not willing to enter a minefield if another unit was present in this sector (combo mine/satellite field). The minesweeper waited for a warship to clear the satellite and the warship waited for the minesweeper to clear the mines. As the field was never cleared, the AI stacked large amounts of ships in front of such a field. The problem has been solved, the minesweeper will now go in and clear the mines. If it is destroyed by the units (only fighter can do this), so be it, minesweeping is already a suicide mission.

4.) The population transport minister would never move population to a planet with 0 population but &gt;0 facilities. As the Ai will not give up planets these 0 population planets were effectively lost for the AI. The AI will now send in population transports. Make sure to have medical bay on board!

5.) The AI tried to produce units (like troops) even if the Space Yard Ship was in deep space. The AI would try to produce them every turn so the ship could never move from its position but neither could produce the units. This has been solved, space yard ships (and I think bases, too) won’t produce units any more. This frees them for ship production and repair mission (yes, SYS will go after your damaged units and repair them!).

Re: Psst, over here, I got the latest patch status... shhhh
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Andrés Lescano:
3) If you "finish" a counter-intelligence project (i.e., spend all
100,000 points or whatever the cost is), without having to block an
intel project (either because no-one's using intel against you or
because they haven't completed the project yet), the counter-intel
project "fails".

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I for my part still think this is a bad thing. I guess the root cause for this is that normal research or offensive intel projects are completed, and the module for CI has just been "copied". But it makes absolutely no sense IMHO.

Re: Psst, over here, I got the latest patch status... shhhh
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>3) If you "finish" a counter-intelligence project (i.e., spend all
100,000 points or whatever the cost is), without having to block an
intel project (either because no-one's using intel against you or
because they haven't completed the project yet), the counter-intel
project "fails".
---------------------------------------------
I for my part still think this is a bad thing. I guess the root cause for this is that normal research or offensive intel projects are completed, and the module for CI has just been "copied". But it makes absolutely no sense IMHO.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So how about some simple methods of getting around it?

1) When adding points to Intel ops, check if this op is actually a CI, and if the amount budgeted will complete the project.
If so, then pass along the points to the next project in the queue. If the end of the queue has been reached, the points are lost.

1b) If adding intel points to a CI project will cause it to be completed, set the project to its total cost minus ONE point.
Any excess is lost.
(Players will have to manually rotate CI projects to the front of the queue, AND/OR use "divide points evenly")

Re: Psst, over here, I got the latest patch status... shhhh
 

I'd still like to know what happens (post patch) if you have a half-finished CI project, stop adding points to it, and get hit by an intel offensive. Will the CI project work or not?

Re: Psst, over here, I got the latest patch status... shhhh
 

It is really great to read about all the stuff that is being squashed etc. But, does anyone know when the patch is likely to be finished? Any sort of heads up on WHEN we are likely to see something would be greatly appreciated. Once again, the only thing on this subject is the old update on the Malfador web page talking about a September release.

Re: Psst, over here, I got the latest patch status... shhhh
 

i think richard said something about the next week or two of course that was Last week...

Re: Psst, over here, I got the latest patch status... shhhh
 

Have any of you considered buying a new copy once the second burn is availible?

------------------
New Age Ship Yards

"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!" -- Captain Picard STNG

Borg Breen Species 8472 Cardassian Dominion STNG Ferengi Klingon Romulan
Trek Movie era TOS Illuminati Starwolf

Re: Psst, over here, I got the latest patch status... shhhh
 

since i have all the stuff already no not really.

Re: Psst, over here, I got the latest patch status... shhhh
 

Possibly, but it would basically be more of a "contribution" as such to MM. I have gotten more out of the $40+ I spent for SE4 Last November than I have out of any game I have bought since my first game purchase in the 70s. . .

Re: Psst, over here, I got the latest patch status... shhhh
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by chewy027:
i think richard said something about the next week or two of course that was Last week...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Possibly next week." -Richard, Oct 9th.

Which means it might be out this week, or it might not. Depends on what disaster crops up while finishing testing, I guess. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif




------------------
--
"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: Psst, over here, I got the latest patch status... shhhh
 

Ok, gonna be some happy people here when you read this I think...
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Version 1.47:
1. Changed - Combat has been changed such that order of player's
movement is random. In addition, defenders will be placed
at the front of the player list so that they get to move
first.
2. Added - When the host logs in to a game, he can go to the Game Options
window where there is now a "Reset Passwords" button. The host
can select which empires he wants to have their passwords reset.
The new password is displayed to the host and a message is sent in
the log to the player informing him that his password was reset.
The host needs to give the new password to the player for their
next turn. A host should perform any password resets before
processing the turn.
3. Fixed - In a Simultaneous Game, sometimes the Replay All Ship Movement
would cause a crash.
4. Fixed - Hitting return now works on the Player Login screen.
5. Fixed - The Designs List window will no longer jump to the top if you
mark a ship as obsolete and can view obsolete ships.
6. Fixed - Resorting on the Colonies or Ships Window with the large rows
showing would sometimes result in rows of incorrect height.
7. Fixed - Spaceborne units were not counted in statistics when scrapped,
self-destructed, or fired on.
8. Fixed - Missing a space before the empire name in a message about intel
defense. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not perfect but it should be better than the current initiative system. Although I'll be the first to admit I don't know how "Random" and "Defender first" will work together. Rather than guess I'll just run some tests games with the beta and let you know if I can figure it out. If anyone recognizes that as their suggestion, please let us know what that means. They seem to be contradictory to me.

The password reset feature is huge news for PBW. Allows us to fill open spots where the player drops and has changed the password. Before this our only option was to let the AI run the empire.

This is turning out to be a helluva patch! http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

Geoschmo

Re: Psst, over here, I got the latest patch status... shhhh
 

I am currently dancing a jig....

One helluva patch!

Re: Psst, over here, I got the latest patch status... shhhh
 

I most agree with everyone when I say I'm actively looking forward to this patch!

Geo,

I believe "Random Player Movement" refers to the movement of ships and such during simultaneous games. Instead of the first player's ships moving first, then the second players etc..., this order will be random.

For combat mode, the defenders will be able to move first, which is a welcome relief to say the least!

------------------
"Reality is a nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there."

Re: Psst, over here, I got the latest patch status... shhhh
 

Some excellent Last minute fixes, especially numbers 1, 2, and 4.
Now I just pray to god that ongoing PBW games will be compatible (upgradeable) to this patch...

Re: Psst, over here, I got the latest patch status... shhhh
 

Am giving the change to initiative some more thought.
Presumably the randomness only applies to the first combat turn? Otherwise you could get to go 3 times in a row http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif
Also, I assume Defender is defined as a player who occupies a sector, and the attacker is the one moving into that sector. But what if two fleets move into a sector at the same time?

Re: Psst, over here, I got the latest patch status... shhhh
 

With the reset password option, would it now be possible for a race that originally started a PBW game as an AI race to be taken over by a human player?

Re: Psst, over here, I got the latest patch status... shhhh
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slaughtermeyer:
With the reset password option, would it now be possible for a race that originally started a PBW game as an AI race to be taken over by a human player?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

now there is an idea with potential. recreate the old 'neutral challenge' in multiplayer mode. assign players to computer generated neutral races, populate the quad with high bonus 5000 point AIs, and see who survives.