Some remark from a stars! player
 

It has been some weeks now that I play SE IV, and I have a bLast. Before I played to the death Stars from Crisium.com, and managed I think to reach a veteran position, having done quite a number of MP Games. I would like to share some thoughs, as I'm a 'transfuge'. Don't get me wrong, SE IV is a great great game, and I now thinks that he is, at least partly, superior to stars! in many way. Don't blame me for my remarks, look at them as innocent critiscism http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Some things surprised me in SE IV. I still dont quite understand why, after 4 iterations of the game, such features are like this. Perhaps the vets here can tell me the reasons why Aaron Hall did these things:

1- Only one item build on each planet each turn, with no carry over of production. Induce quite a MM hell if you want to optimize the prod queue. Silly example is I order to build one turn worth of fighters, and during the turn processing one of my transport take some pop and reduce the available production, making the construction take 2 turns, with the second turn using only 10% of the build capacity of the planet.

2- No scenario editor ???

3- No parametrable load order. In stars you could order to load population, but leaving at least xxx colonists on the planet. Quite a strong feature if you wanted to automate all transport without fearing to deplete any world (Set waypoint to, leave xxx at waypoint).

4- Some weapons seem to be utterly useless. One can see this even after one day of play. Why Malfador never tweaked the stats, taking feedback from players?

Re: Some remark from a stars! player
 

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

3- No parametrable load order. In stars you could order to load population, but leaving at least xxx colonists on the planet. Quite a strong feature if you wanted to automate all transport without fearing to deplete any world (Set waypoint to, leave xxx at waypoint).
<hr></blockquote>

Try using "Cargo Transfer" as opposed
to "Load Cargo"

Re: Some remark from a stars! player
 

Some good points. malfador time to step up to the plate.

Re: Some remark from a stars! player
 

It is natural to assume that people that have been here a long time have some special influence or understanding into the whys and wherefores of Aaron Hall's thought processes, but that is not really the case.

As far as your specific points:

1. This is a good point. I have never heard it put in exactly these terms before, although that's not to say it hasn't been. Perhaps this is simply a case of noone has asked for it. Or perhaps it's "on the list". There are many things that get requested, that even Aaron says he likes and plans to do someday, but don't get done for lack of time. Unfortunatly the nature of the industry, and this type of niche game limit the resources he has to work on this game.

2. This one has been requested, a lot. I don't know if it's just a matter of lack of time to do it effectivly. That's my guess though. He could throw toghether a half a$$ one, but it's not likely to please most of the people waiting on it, and that is not been the way he normally does things. Many of us have developed tecniques to work around this though and make fairly effective scenarios.

3. Again, a nice feature to have. There are ways to program the AI to do this, so you should be able to program your personal races AI and then turn the pop relocation over to the ministers, but I am not sure. It may be another case of not enough request for it, or nobody expressing it in the way you do that is so easily understandable.

4. Here I have to disagree with you a bit. I don't really believe any of the weapons are "useless". A lot of them become obsolete at different points in the game, but that doesn't mean they aren't useful in their time. Plus getting a consensus on a problem in these areas is much easier than getting a consensus on the solution. Many "solutions" in fact open up a whole new set of problems. Ask anyone who has tried to do a "weapon balance" mod how easy it is.

But this is an area where SEIV has no equal. If you feel there are problems in these weapon areas, there is very little you can't change yourself in a mod to make it the way you like it. Then you don't have to convince Aaron it's a problem, you can go ahead and fix it yourself. He's given you the tools.

Geoschmo

Re: Some remark from a stars! player
 

On the scenario editor, I recall Aaron saying that the expense of making it outways the benefit of making it. I suppose when MM grows, there will be mroe people and resources to absorb the cost.

Re: Some remark from a stars! player
 

One of the things that our "Stars!" player missed was:

The ability to give a merge fleet order. I can't tell you how many turns I've wasted just trying to get two fleets of ships to sync up.

This headache is even worse, if you have fleets with 2 different movement rates, because then you have to calculate how to move them, to get them all to arrive in a combat sector within the proper combat phase window, where they will all fight at the same time!

There's nothing more frustrating than sending 2 or 3 fleets to attack a planet and having them arrive one combat phase apart, and having them destroyed because you didn't have the #'s on your side..

--Ed

Re: Some remark from a stars! player
 

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

1- Only one item build on each planet each turn, with no carry over of production....

2- No scenario editor ???

3- No parametrable load order. In stars you could order to load population, but leaving at least xxx colonists on the planet....

4- Some weapons seem to be utterly useless... <hr></blockquote>

From another former Stars! player, I too see problem 3. It becomes a real difficulty during multiplayer. Early in SE4 games, I try to spread my population to the newly forming colonies (higher populations means higher production). But at some point, shortages force me to limit how many people to put on new worlds. This limitation cannot be automated. The transferring to-and-from the transport must be done manually, making the process takes extra turns.

Number 2. Yeah, this kinda baffled me. A Scenario button, but no scenarios. I know there are Mods. But if there is talk about working on a Scenario Editor (or even some official Scenarios), I'd vote that be worked on (I know... picky, picky, picky http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif ).

Problem 1 irked me at first, but it happens so often in other 4X games that I don't notice it any more.

On weapons, I must disagree with you Athena (and thus, agree with Geo). I have heard many players say certain techs/weapons are useless. I think that is somewhat based on a player's strategy. Some people say Fighters are pointless, but I have success using them. Same with weapons.

And there's my Two Cents.. go team.

Re: Some remark from a stars! player
 

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Athena:
&lt;snip&gt;
Some things surprised me in SE IV. I still dont quite understand why, after 4 iterations of the game, such features are like this. Perhaps the vets here can tell me the reasons why Aaron Hall did these things:

1- Only one item build on each planet each turn, with no carry over of production. Induce quite a MM hell if you want to optimize the prod queue. Silly example is I order to build one turn worth of fighters, and during the turn processing one of my transport take some pop and reduce the available production, making the construction take 2 turns, with the second turn using only 10% of the build capacity of the planet.<hr></blockquote>

Well, actually, this is a new feature in SEIV; SE2 and SE3 (the only two previous iterations I'm familiar with), used a completely different build philosophy. Basically, each shipyard could "repair" a certain number of components per turn. When you bought a ship (or fighter), the hull appeared the next turn, but all components were "under construction". When all components were "repaired", the ship was complete. In both SE2 and SE3, you could put multiple ship yards on the same ship; planet-based ship yards were based on having more than 100M population, and I think the shipyard queue was separate from the facility build queue. In SE2, multiple shipyards could work on the same ship, so you could complete large ships quickly by bringing in more shipyards. In SE3, Malfador implemented the system that only one yard could work on a given ship at a time; but, you could move that ship between space yards if multiple space yards were available. The big problem with that system is that stellar-manipulation components were, obviously, a single component. So star-destroying, etc. ships were fast build items (expensive, but fast build). The other issue is that all costs were "upfront"; you paid the entire price of a ship in one turn. SE4 spreads out the cost, and also allows for expensive ships to take a long time to build, thus providing a way to improve game balance. As for using "extra capacity" (i.e., a shipyard only uses part of its capacity in a single turn), I think this is a problem with many turn-based strategy games. Carryover of production ability might be nice, but I have no idea how difficult it would be to program. Or what the effect would be on the AI's production ability.

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Athena:
2- No scenario editor ???<hr></blockquote>

As geoschmo mentioned, you're not the first to ask for this; SE3 was the first iteration to allow modding at all (user could create new components, facilities, and units), and SE4 added even more customization (customize AI, map editor, research areas). So they've made progress; the next logical step is a scenario editor. Maybe for SE5...

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Athena:
3- No parametrable load order. In stars you could order to load population, but leaving at least xxx colonists on the planet. Quite a strong feature if you wanted to automate all transport without fearing to deplete any world (Set waypoint to, leave xxx at waypoint).<hr></blockquote>

This is a small part of another big request from the fans; basically, a number of us would like more options for just about every order. Things like "move to planet X, wait until cargo Y is available, load Y and move to warppoint Z". The people who play mainly simultaneous move games would really like the ability to specify ahead of time how much cargo to load...

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Athena:
4- Some weapons seem to be utterly useless. One can see this even after one day of play. Why Malfador never tweaked the stats, taking feedback from players?<hr></blockquote>

As geoschmo mentioned, there've been many attempts at balancing weapon techs, but without much success. Malfador has made a number of changes to weapons throughout the SE4 run (look through the history file for these changes; at least one change (to the Anti-Proton Beam) was taken directly from player input). Some of the "problems" stem from the changes between SE3 and SE4, and other "problems" are the desire from fans for more unique-sounding weapons with cool abilities, but with enough limitations to keep the new weapons from dominating the game. And most of the veterans have found good uses for many of the more useless-looking weapons; or they've modded the weapons to become more useful.

Re: Some remark from a stars! player
 

For the weapons part. It seems this way. But I have found that it just isn't so. Each weapon can be usefull depending on your strategy. For the most part I use a weapon that most consider worthless. The Meson BLaster. high research cost but the only weapon that has higher comp cost/kt size to damage ratio is the Ripper Beam which has a greatly reduced range. Long Live the Meson BLaster.

From a Stars! standpoint I see this point of view coming about from the limited number of weapon Groups in Stars! Each group had very specific abilities and strengths/weaknesses. But there weren't a whole lot of them. If memory serves you had missiles, torp, and beams as the basic weapons with steady and constant modifiers on each. (I played Stars! before SE4 and really want to see SuperNova come out)

In fact I think the weapons system of Stars! and its lack of diversity is one thing that turned me away from it eventually. There are only so many strategies you can use. If you know the persons weapons you know what strategy they are using. In SE4 you just can't really tell.

Is the person an insane genius using that weapon or just stupid?

Re: Some remark from a stars! player
 

"The Meson BLaster. high research cost but the only weapon that has higher comp cost/kt size to damage ratio is the Ripper Beam which has a greatly reduced range."

Not true. Sure, the Meson has a high initial cost, but it only goes to level VI. That makes the actually cost quite low; it's something like a THIRD of the cost to research max Meson BLasters as opposed to APB. (especially if you're playing medium tech, which gives the first two levels free)

Phoenix-D

Re: Some remark from a stars! player
 

Different game parameters will make weapons more or less useful. Many people consider weapons based on (Damage /Mineral Cost / KT) and what they can skip (shields and/or armor). However, if you have a small ship limit (200-300), then cost matters little once you get an established empire and you are more concerned how much damage you can pack into each kiloton (maximize Damage / KT).

I have heard many complain about the inability to build one ship and carry over left over capacity to the next ship. I have intentially left one piece of armor or one weapon off a ship, just to get its cost to be one turn less. Of course, these boundaries ship when you add population bonuses or improve you shipyards. I too would like to see that changed.

----
Stars has its problems as well. In stars, you target enemy fleets, not individual ships. This causes all kinds of Fleet Spliting scenarios when trying to target something. Stars tracks damage in percent increments instead of damage points, so that the minimum damage you can do to a ship is .2% on a hit. In stars ships are maintenance free, so people just build ships until they run out of resources. In stars, the research tree is exhuasted in about 100-120 turns. In SEIV, you should have plenty to still research for another 100-200 turns. In Stars you avoid combat because there are few rewards. You want to save your resources to build the most Nubian later in the game. In stars, you cannot win with superior resources and inferior technology. In SEIV you can. You have many more ship strategies: Shooting, Capturing, Ramming. In stars you can shoot or run away. Running away in SEIV is difficult (many of complained about this), in Stars running away is easy in the early game and nearly impossible in the later game (Missles and Range 3 beams are yard to outrun since they get at least 3 shots at you with missles or 2 with beams).

Re: Some remark from a stars! player
 

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by DirectorTsaarx:
[...]
Carryover of production ability might be nice, but I have no idea how difficult it would be to program. Or what the effect would be on the AI's production ability.
[...]<hr></blockquote>

[WILD_SPECULATION]
Weeell... If we assume that the AI is filling its build queue in a knapsack-esque fashion (w/ a scheme like "weight" = cost, "capacity" = time, and "value" = importance to the AI given the situation), than it seems like it ought to be trivial to convert the build queue to a fractional knapsack algorithm, which would solve the AI portion of this problem quite nicely. 'Course, that first assumption might be a bit of a tall order...
[/WILD_SPECULATION]

(Anyone care to guess who ought to be studying for an Analysis of Algorithms final instead of reading the forums?)

E. Albright

[EDIT: Corrected parameters ("weight", etc.) in my knapsack analogy / speculation / whatever. Hmm... If my initial post reflected my understanding of knapsack problems, I REALLY ought to be studying...]

[ 06 May 2002: Message edited by: ealbright ]</p>

Re: Some remark from a stars! player
 

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr> This headache is even worse, if you have fleets with 2 different movement rates, because then you have to calculate how to move them, to get them all to arrive in a combat sector within the proper combat phase window, where they will all fight at the same time! <hr></blockquote>It's much easier to just move the fleets to a rendezvous point, manually merge them into a single fleet, then proceed to the target.

But being able to order ships to move to join a fleet would be nice, too.

[ 07 May 2002: Message edited by: capnq ]</p>

Re: Some remark from a stars! player
 

warning : Forget my clumsy english, I'm a foreigner.

I thank you all a lot for your detailled responses. This forum seem to be of a very high level regarding patience and proficiency.

I wont comment on stars! pro and con. Having been a fanatic of stars! I would be too partial, even if I recognize quite a lot of better features in SE IV.

There is only an answer I would comment, it's on the usefulness of all weapons. I think that even if you can mod it to your liking, I suppose that most of the players in PBEM/PBW will play with the official release to avoid endless discussions. So for a specific example, I would use the anti-matter torp line of weapons. Frankly how can you use this thing? This weapon is inferior in all other in all stats. I looked in the components.txt hopping for a hidden to hit bonus that will change my point of view, but no bonus either...

Ah also... I just forgot the main point. I have never been able to start preparing my PBEM turn save it and resume the planification afterward. I cant imagine that I must plan my turn in a single session really (stars! permit it yes http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif .

Just tell me how you do !

thank you all for your input. I think I will stay a while in this forum ;o)

Re: Some remark from a stars! player
 

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by capnq:
It's much easier to just move the fleets to a rendezvous point, manually merge them into a single fleet, then proceed to the target.

But being able to order ships to move to join a fleet would be nice, too.

[ 07 May 2002: Message edited by: capnq ]<hr></blockquote>

That requires an extra turn which you sometimes do not have.

Re: Some remark from a stars! player
 

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>
Ah also... I just forgot the main point. I have never been able to start preparing my PBEM turn save it and resume the planification afterward. I cant imagine that I must plan my turn in a single session really (stars! permit it yes .
<hr></blockquote>

Sorry, you can't save your PBEM / PBW turn and play it in several sessions. You have to play it all at once and hit "end turn." This sucks, and you're not the first person to say so=-)

The good thing is, if you keep writing to Malfador, they might eventually include the change you want=-)

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>
I'm a foreigner....<hr></blockquote> <blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>...planification... <hr></blockquote>

Let me guess... French, right?

Re: Some remark from a stars! player
 

Me a French?? Why, no, I'm from Mount Olympus, Greece http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif


Yes you're right. Don't blame me though, nobody is perfect http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Some remark from a stars! player
 

I Wish I had known about STARS! years ago.
I played it recently while waiting for SE4 GOLD.
STARS! is a fun game. I Bet it was great Multiplayer.

I hope the sequal happens.

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

UPGRADES HAPPEN

Re: Some remark from a stars! player
 

About Anti-Matter torps.. they have several advantages that might make them worthwhile with the right strategies.

1) They ARE direct fire weapons rather than seekers and have a high damage rating. (compared to other similar tech level DF weapons)

2) Because they are direct fire weapons, you can use the weapon "mounts" to greatly improve thier efficiency. A HEAVY Anti-Matter torp mount does 2x damage with only a 1.5x increase in size. Mounted on a base, the higher level torps have an amazing range and constant damage output over that range.

3) The Anti-matter torp (and the quantum torps later) fire every other round. This lowers thier damage over time rating to slighlty less than an equivalent beam weapon. HOWEVER, the fact that you can do a LOT more damage in that first strike CAN and DOES make a difference in battle. In the end game, using HUGE mount quantum torps, my Baseships can cripple or outright destroy enemy Baseships in that first barrage. A ship mounted with similar beam weapons would barely pierce the shields, allowing the enemy to shoot back. The weakness is that those baseships are practicaly helpless while they are reloading http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

In my opinion, the only better Direct Fire weapon in the game is the Wave Motion gun... Better for MASSIVE first strike potential that is.

Rob
(A fan of Anti-Matter Torps)

Re: Some remark from a stars! player
 

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

I thank you all a lot for your detailled responses. This forum seem to be of a very high level regarding patience and proficiency.

...

There is only an answer I would comment, it's on the usefulness of all weapons. I think that even if you can mod it to your liking, I suppose that most of the players in PBEM/PBW will play with the official release to avoid endless discussions. So for a specific example, I would use the anti-matter torp line of weapons. Frankly how can you use this thing? This weapon is inferior in all other in all stats. I looked in the components.txt hopping for a hidden to hit bonus that will change my point of view, but no bonus either...

<hr></blockquote>

This game, any 4X game, is a truly huge project. Yet, this one is the work of one person. Yes, Malfador Machinations is one programmer company. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif It's really too much for one person to design the game, write the code, and play balance the whole system. Fortunately, the game was designed to be easily customizable. So, we players have sort of formed an impromptu 'extension' of MM here and worked to play balance it for ourselves. The most active posters here are all tinkerers who are probably wannabe game programmers themselves. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif There are many problems in the original configuration of the game but we've often worked out fixes for them.

Regarding the problem with Torpedos, you have actually hit upon the solution that most of us agree is the best compromise. Most of the 'modifications' published will have a 'to hit' bonus for torpedos. There are other possible approaches to this problem if we could get MM to implement some code changes we have been asking for, but in the mean time this will have to do.

Re: Some remark from a stars! player
 

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr> I have never been able to start preparing my PBEM turn save it and resume the planification afterward. I cant imagine that I must plan my turn in a single session really <hr></blockquote> I'm a compulsive micromanager; my personal record for longest PBW turn session is over two hours. (I'm not quite compulsive enough to have timed it exactly. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif )

Re: Some remark from a stars! player
 

PBW is down!!! PBW is down!!! PBW is down!!!

Do you know of any open STARS! multiplayer games???


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

DOWNTIME HAPPENS!!!

Re: Some remark from a stars! player
 

What I miss most of all in SEIV (as compared to Stars!) is the race building variety. There are plenty of parameters in the SEIV process, but none seem to really make a great deal of difference. I mean, so what if I have 1 percent less tolerance...just what does that get me other than a few more points to put into some other meaningless trait.

I feel SEIV is a GREAT (!) game, but I wish it had more of the variety Stars! has in race-building. Maybe more emphasis on the Advanced Traits (as in the Proportions Mod) might help.

Re: Some remark from a stars! player
 

"I mean, so what if I have 1 percent less tolerance...just what does that get me other than a few more points to put into some other meaningless trait."

The traits are far from meaningless.. 1% of them doesn't do a huge amount, but larger numbers will. Aggressiveness and Defensiveness are the most obvious..tolerence is probably the "black sheep" of the group, given that it doesn't do a huge amount.

Phoenix-D

Re: Some remark from a stars! player
 

Actually, in reproduction, any ill-considered changes to that could lead you to be locked with 4 billion people all game long because your population grow will be limited to like 0.002% per turn in extreme cases.

Re: Some remark from a stars! player
 

A good way to make up for a zero reproduction rate is to take organic manipulation. Build a few replicant facilities and then ship the new people around.

Re: Some remark from a stars! player
 

About the Anti-matter torps:

True that they do slightly more damage than a DUC of the same tech level, but they also weigth 25% more. With that you gain an inferior range. Well it's a minor point, it was just to point out that some changes were blatantly needed and that Aaron could do this in a matter of minutes in the components file just by agreeing with the change most asked by the vets players.

On the inability to save the order file compared to stars: It strikes me cruely because in stars PBEM (16 players per game routinely) there was a lot of diplomacy and to be efficient it was mandatory to wait for responses from other players (how you coordinate attacks then ? )

Well I have still much to learn in solo game before trying to play in PBEM, but my expectations are great for this game, as poor stars supernova is more and more cold http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Re: Some remark from a stars! player
 

Not allowing people to save & restart their PBEM turns was intended (IIRC) to prevent the exploit of saving immediately before combat, letting the combat play out, and, if the combat went poorly, reloading the saved Version of the turn and avoiding said combat. Or other similar exploits (re-trying colonization of a ruins planet until a "good" tech appears, for instance).

Re: Some remark from a stars! player
 

"True that they do slightly more damage than a DUC of the same tech level, but they also weigth 25% more. With that you gain an inferior range"

Methinks someone needs to finish researching http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif That extra 5 levels makes a difference. DUCs are cheaper to research though. But if you have a speed advantage, the torps are better, since you can fire and run away while they reload http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

DUC Vs do 40 damage out to range 5, fires every turn
Quantum Torpedo Vs do 100 damage out to range 6, fires every other turn, weighs 10kt more.

So: damage/kt/turn:
DUCV: 1.33
Quantum V: 1.25
Comparion:
APB XII: 2.16 (max) to 1.5 (min) range 8
PPB V: 2 (max) to 1.67 (min) range 6
WMG III: .667 out to range 8 (reload 3)

The APB costs quite a bit more to research though.

EDIT:
"On the inability to save the order file compared to stars: It strikes me cruely because in stars PBEM (16 players per game routinely) there was a lot of diplomacy and to be efficient it was mandatory to wait for responses from other players (how you coordinate attacks then ? )"

The inability to save doesn't affect this at all. You can't save and wait for another person's actions to play out; you COULD save and wait for their email message, but nothing in game. But, then, if you're waiting for email, you can just do your turn and then not send it. If something comes in that you need to change plans, open the turn file again and play again (that can be done, you just start from scratch on the turn)

Phoenix-D

[ May 14, 2002, 05:17 PM: Message edited by: Phoenix-D ]

Re: Some remark from a stars! player
 

"Not allowing people to save & restart their PBEM turns was intended (IIRC) to prevent the exploit of saving immediately before combat, letting the combat play out, and, if the combat went poorly, reloading the saved Version of the turn and avoiding said combat. Or other similar exploits (re-trying colonization of a ruins planet until a "good" tech appears, for instance)."

You can't do that in simultanious play..

Phoenix-D

Re: Some remark from a stars! player
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Of course that is the whole complaint http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif When it takes 30+ minutes for some of the more involved turns it becomes a chore to have to replay it all now that you have gotten your email reply.

Re: Some remark from a stars! player
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I've never played simultaneous, so I'll take your word for it. So, while the "feature" of not saving mid-turn for multiplayer makes sense for non-simultaneous, it may not cause an "exploit" to be able to save a simultaneous-mode game in mid-turn & come back later. Of course, maybe that's difficult to program...

Re: Some remark from a stars! player
 

No, the way simultaneous works is that nothing involving commitment to decisions occurs until the turn is sent in by all players. There is no way anyone can ever know the results before commiting their orders and getting the next turn back from the host to see the results.

I've never understood why simultaneous mode doesn't allow saving mid-turn. I think there must be some internal code reason that MM hasn't changed it yet, because it's been requested since before SE4 was released.

PvK

Re: Some remark from a stars! player
 

I cannot imagine what those reasons would be:

1) It can obviously save the moves to a file already (saves .plr files when you hit End Turn)

2) It can obviously read the .plr files back in to construct the moves.

Seems a small leap to combine those two pieces of code to allow you to continue your turn. Or am I wrong?

The only thing I can think of is that maybe when you save your .plr file (hit End Turn) it gets encrypted such that you need the host password to unencrypt it and so you as a player are unable to open it back up since you do not know the host password.

Of course, you might say, don't encrypt it when saving your session. But the problem is that if the turn file is unencrypted, you might go figure out how to hex-edit in some moves that defy the gamerules and then that means when processing the turn, there would have to be a new piece of code which validates all the moves. This is all conjecture of course http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">

Re: Some remark from a stars! player
 

I've done a fair bit of programming, in a lab environment that requires a lot feature creeps. I am so glad there are only 2 Users tops!!!

It is a real pain to add capabilities that weren't planned for. Often the added variables have to be passed up and down the subroutine tree. C++ with it's inheritance makes it easier but it's not SE4s language.

SE4 is an impressive one man show.

Re: Some remark from a stars! player
 

ISTR reading someplace that SE4 was written in Delphi... maybe on MM's site, or maybe in one of the interviews with Aaron Hall that were floating around when SE4 first came out...

Re: Some remark from a stars! player
 

Naa, he uses NADA, an objection oriented language. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

Re: Some remark from a stars! player
 

ahah we now speak of programming language. In which language is written SE IV? From the data files, with keyword like "begin", "end" and even the ":=" it speaks to me as being written in Delphi (or Pascal), but perhaps not... who knows?

saving the turn and being able to reload it was routinely done in stars! The files were encrypted, and all orders were with the client/server philosophy. In SEIV simultaneous turn thats the same thing: you only do requests, no real orders. So what is the real issue in not supporting this feature? Too few people complains perhaps http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif