something I do not like in gold patch
 

Version 1.65:

"8. Changed - Ships and fighters with zero supplies will not be able to fire any of their weapons."

The idea is sound but it makes engine destroying weapons too powerfull. They were devastating even before by immobilising ships, but now... one shot from light cruiser and mighty dreadnought is useless chunk of metal. Supply storage (more is better !!!) is imperative. Even then, one or two lucky shots and ship is basicaly dead.

Since every military ship from now on must carry supply storagies, why not give this ability to ship hulls ? The basic idea that once ship runs out of supplies is useless will still work, but it will eliminate the russian roulette from battles. The hull's supply should be relatively small value of course.

Related issue : In standard SE IV, bigger ships have less engines and are much more fragile than say escorts. This is just plain wrong and completely rediculous, IMHO. SE IV should really be based on quasi-Newtonian propulsion, like P&N or Proportions.

Re: something I do not like in gold patch
 

This is true. in my current vsAI I can disable a large fleet of battlecruisers with a single escort. (with ECM, size bonus, training bonus and an events predictor it's virtually imposible to hit without seekers=-)

I like Oleg's idea of building supply storage into the hull (not too much). Obviously this is easily modded, but I think Aaron ought to address this in the official release in a future patch. While he's at it, maybe he could fix the "My engine is half as big as my fuel tank but holds just as much fuel" supply storage component. Maybe add in a 5kt supply box as well, to help balance those anti-engine-weapons.

Re: something I do not like in gold patch
 

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by oleg:
...
Related issue : In standard SE IV, bigger ships have less engines and are much more fragile than say escorts. This is just plain wrong and completely rediculous, IMHO. SE IV should really be based on quasi-Newtonian propulsion, like P&N or Proportions.<hr></blockquote>

As you can see in Proportions, I agree qNp is better. SE3, by the way, had crude qNp. Escorts through light cruisers required one engine per standard movement point, and could mount up to six. Cruisers and battlecruisers required two per, and could mount up to ten, battleships and dreadnoughts, if I remember correctly, were 3 per, up to 12, and I think baseships were 4 per, max I don't recall.

Interestingly, I heard that this was changed in SE4 in response to player requests (!). I think it was that some players didn't like having to pile 10-12 engines on a ship. (SE3 doesn't have a condensed design view.)

Personally, though, I don't think the supply component storage should be increased, regardless of the comparison to engine supply. This is because it makes sense to me that engines could create energy for the rest of the ship via their operation, and also I see component size rating as impact on ship capabilities, rather than literal size, so I think the direct comparison is invalid.

I would just recommend making supply components a lot cheaper, although that will affect the cheapness of supply ships, which is a big change to the standard set (presently, making a supply ship generally costs more than making a warship).

PvK

Re: something I do not like in gold patch
 

Baseships in SE3 were 10 Engines per move, max 30 engines.

This is because it makes sense to me that engines could create energy for the rest of the ship via their operation
Engines use supplies, they don't generate any.

My objection is because of the question "Why can't I replace that supply tank with two engines, and just unplug/not use those two? It would double my supply storage!

Re: something I do not like in gold patch
 

The point of this change was to make it where battles use up supplies.

Re: something I do not like in gold patch
 

Actually, I like the Idea that engine weapons made more devastating as it give those almost dead empires hope http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

And rightfully also, which gives you another reason to think and counterdevelop rather than keep building souped up dreadnoughts over and over again.

Re: something I do not like in gold patch
 

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by oleg:
Version 1.65:

"8. Changed - Ships and fighters with zero supplies will not be able to fire any of their weapons."

The idea is sound but it makes engine destroying weapons too powerfull... ...Since every military ship from now on must carry supply storagies, why not give this ability to ship hulls ? <hr></blockquote>

I think the move supplies to hull idea is good fix all around.
I use engine damage weapons because they are to powerfull to ignore. I know other players complain about them, and the sizing of the reserves.

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

Damn, Another upgrade!!!

Re: something I do not like in gold patch
 

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
...
This is because it makes sense to me that engines could create energy for the rest of the ship via their operation
Engines use supplies, they don't generate any.
<hr></blockquote>

In game terms, no, but in terms of what they represent, a propulsion engine can often generate power as a side effect. Since SE4 isn't detailed enough to model this, it can be represented fudgily by giving the engines more supplies, representing their ability to generate power from fuel.


<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>
My objection is because of the question "Why can't I replace that supply tank with two engines, and just unplug/not use those two? It would double my supply storage!<hr></blockquote>

My explanation is that the ship design system is obviously abstract rather than literal. If you did that, it would be a supply generator component, and rated as "larger" than the engine Version. My rationalization is that research of a vehicle size class allows a design with so many engines, with some trade-off if engine numbers are reduced, but deploying an engine system as a supply generator, on top of a full complement of engines that your designers can make work, would result in more space being taken away from the non-engine component ability of the design. I.e., it would count as a larger non-engine component. Conversely, an engine is probably larger than other 10kT components (hence its 20kT damage capacity), but costs the design less lost space. That is, supply storage _IS_ like an engine that just "generates" supplies. At least, that's how I try to make sense of it.

PvK

Re: something I do not like in gold patch
 

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Wardad:

...
I use engine damage weapons because they are to powerfull to ignore. I know other players complain about them, and the sizing of the reserves.
<hr></blockquote>

Seems to me that it would help (at least for mods) would be to make "damages engines only" and "damages weapons only" into separate abilities from "skips armor and shields." Since they're currently damage types, this would probably mean needing to make more damage types.

Re: something I do not like in gold patch
 

PVK:
"That is, supply storage _IS_ like an engine that just "generates" supplies. At least, that's how I try to make sense of it."

Ah HA!
I think I see our problem. You see supplies as power (reactors), while I see them as fuel.

I am curious as to how your reactor model explains "running out of supplies" and the fact that even one supply component can use all of its supplies anywhere from instantly to year-long spans.

There are mods which change supplies into reactor power, by having reactors that generate as much as they can store each turn.

Re: something I do not like in gold patch
 

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
Ah HA!
I think I see our problem. You see supplies as power (reactors), while I see them as fuel..<hr></blockquote>

Ya, I see supplies as various forms of fuel and food and spare parts and ammunition. I'm not entirely satisfied with these all being one value in SE4, but it's ok.


<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>
I am curious as to how your reactor model explains "running out of supplies" and the fact that even one supply component can use all of its supplies anywhere from instantly to year-long spans.<hr></blockquote>

The engines still require fuel to run them. Their high supply "storage" compared to "Supply Storage" components reflects their ability to generate energy as they burn fuel. Using supplies "instantly" (in the case of a lot of fighting or component use) means they burned a lot of fuel to generate power to run demanding components. During long-distance travel, a ship won't need to run its components very much (but will still use power and food and spare parts and other supplies, although we don't have a per-turn supply use ability in SE4 (yet?)).


<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>
There are mods which change supplies into reactor power, by having reactors that generate as much as they can store each turn.<hr></blockquote>

If there were a way to do this without using the solar-based ability, I would have put this in my Proportions mod. Sadly, I don't think there is a way to mod this currently without linking to the number of suns in the system, which to me was worse than the abstraction of just adding more supplies to represent generation.

For instance, for Quantum reactors, I extended the tech tree several levels before getting the "truly infinite" Q reactor, adding several stages before that which are called Q reactors, but are actually just supply components with massive storage abilities.

PvK

Re: something I do not like in gold patch
 

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by PvK:


If there were a way to do this without using the solar-based ability, I would have put this in my Proportions mod. Sadly, I don't think there is a way to mod this currently without linking to the number of suns in the system, which to me was worse than the abstraction of just adding more supplies to represent generation.

For instance, for Quantum reactors, I extended the tech tree several levels before getting the "truly infinite" Q reactor, adding several stages before that which are called Q reactors, but are actually just supply components with massive storage abilities.

PvK<hr></blockquote>

Well, you might be able to use drones as various types of missiles. (Or at least I tend to name mine after various naval missiles of this era.) Maybe make a few adjustments to the cargo capacity of the launchers to store more of them. (Or halve the size of them and use component enhancement to make half-size mounts or something. Or both.)

Re: something I do not like in gold patch
 

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>If there were a way to do this without using the solar-based ability, I would have put this in my Proportions mod. Sadly, I don't think there is a way to mod this currently without linking to the number of suns in the system, which to me was worse than the abstraction of just adding more supplies to represent generation.<hr></blockquote>The easy solution is to make one star in every system, hidden as a pure-black masked square. Then your reactors always work.
When your reactors generate as much as they store, there is no diff between single, binary and trinary systems.

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>The engines still require fuel to run them. Their high supply "storage" compared to "Supply Storage" components reflects their ability to generate energy as they burn fuel. <hr></blockquote>Sooo ... the fact that they generate energy from fuel ... means that they can store more fuel than a dedicated powerplant/fuel tank.

Re: something I do not like in gold patch
 

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:

The easy solution is to make one star in every system, hidden as a pure-black masked square. Then your reactors always work.
When your reactors generate as much as they store, there is no diff between single, binary and trinary systems.
<hr></blockquote>

I wouldn't expect that to work, though, if the ship has other supply storage aboard. I.e., a ship with such a generator AND a supply storage compartment, I would expect to get its storage filled up by an amount proportional to the number of stars in the system... which again, seems worse to me than the problem it attempts to fix.

Seems like the black-masked sun would cause other possible sillyness as well, such as the ability to hit it with a core instability, sun destroyer, or to build planets without a star, and not be able to create a star in the system, and solar collectors working without a "real" star, etc.

Moreover, although I do have some solar supply generation in Proportions, in general I'm not really happy with it, because supplies to me represent ammo, food, parts, etc, as well as fuel/energy, and these components allow theoretically unlimited operation without returning to resupply those. I don't mind that much because it's ok for the game's abstraction level, and several types of supplies would likely complicate play for marginal gain. However, this to me is a reason against wanting to give engines supply generation - really they should convert fuel to energy - not generate unlimited fuel.


<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
Sooo ... the fact that they generate energy from fuel ... means that they can store more fuel than a dedicated powerplant/fuel tank.<hr></blockquote>

No. As you know, adding engines increases fuel consumption as quickly as it increases supply. So, if you have a design with X engines, and room for either another engine, or the same space in supply storage, adding an engine will not increase range, but adding supply storage will. Engines include some fuel (the supply storage ability), and (the way I rationalize it) the ability to convert engine fuel to energy, both for movement, and as a side-effect of generating movement. A ship with more engines may also have a more efficient (economy of scale) and certainly a more powerful system than a ship with fewer engines, and this is abstractly fudged in the only way that seems acceptable to me in current SE4, by the supply storage. (Actually, this is a rationalization of the de facto SE4 system rather than a cause and effect.)

As I've said before, I see engines and supply storage as different types of device altogether (apples and oranges). Their shared ability (supply storage) is an abstraction forced by SE4's single type of supplies. Engines probably take less design space than they actually involve if they were an internal system, but are limited by the max engines spec of the design. A non-engine component for generating energy for the ship without propulsion, I would probably give more supplies per kT than a supply storage component, but make much more expensive than a supply storage component (the supply storage components in Proportions are quite cheap).

As an example, suppose you have a Proportions ship design with 4 engines, some supply storage, and room and design allowance for two more 10-kT engines, or a 20-kT supply storage component, and for argument assume the engines have twice the supply rating that the 20-kT supply storage would have. If you add two engines, the ship will be faster, but will have less range (greater consumption, and the other non-engine supply will be constant, and so used up sooner). If you add the 20-kT supply, the ship will be slower and less expensive, but will have greater range. If the ship is defensive and doesn't move far from a supply source, the ship with more engines will have more shots with its weapons (more total supply, representing more efficient and powerful energy generation from fuel).

For the unmodded set, I think of it the same way, except the very high expense of supply components wants an explanation. I tend to think that this is to make extending fleet range a more expensive proposition, and assume there are a number of possible rationalizations for why it could make sense and exactly what it could represent, but I've never bothered.

Not entirely consistent, but about as good as other rationalizations, given the limits of the system, it seems to me.

PvK

Re: something I do not like in gold patch
 

Another problem I found with the B5mod engine/reactor system is that all ships have unlimited range.
If you don't include reactors ships have 0 supplies and cannot move, if you include a reactor it will be refilled every turn making supply consuption null.
An ability to generate a fixed amount of supplies would be useful, but I don't think that solar generation can simulate it in any way.

Re: something I do not like in gold patch
 

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Andrés Lescano:
Another problem I found with the B5mod engine/reactor system is that all ships have unlimited range.
If you don't include reactors ships have 0 supplies and cannot move, if you include a reactor it will be refilled every turn making supply consuption null.
An ability to generate a fixed amount of supplies would be useful, but I don't think that solar generation can simulate it in any way.<hr></blockquote>

I've been saying this since before the first release of the game. As with all other ideas that involve changes to abilities, MM seems to have very fixed opinions and needs to realize that many people want this. Send an email expressing your frustration with the inflexible Quantum Reactor ability. All that is required is for the Quantum Reactor ability to take a number. If the number is 0 then it can be 'infinite' like the current QR ability, otherwise it can generate exactly the given amount of supplies per turn. This would open up the possibility of all sorts of cool new supply technologies and even special goodies like self-regenerating engines.

[ 16 April 2002: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]</p>