|
Space Empires 5
Well?
Could it happen? Is it in the works? There is a lot of competition this year (Moo3, IG3) but how about using the same code, but building on it? Moo3 looks like a lot of stuff, but can it compare to SE5? 1. Update the combat. 3d models in a 2d environment? I'd keep it turn based myself... 2. Double the races 3. Double the special techs (Crystal, etc.) 4. Larger ship/sat/base/fighter/drones 5. Add some diplomatic options. 6. Pirates? 7. More? Ideas? Gonna happen? |
Re: Space Empires 5
How about a larger map to explore?
|
Re: Space Empires 5
I'm not sure if SE V is needed yet. From what I've been hearing, MOO3 could have a lot of issues when it goes gold. In fact, this past year I have been let down once too often on "new" games from the big publishers that I don't even forsee myself buying MOO3. SEIV is about as complete a game as I need.
|
Re: Space Empires 5
Iron Giant: As you may know, most of those suggestions are completely modable at this time. This is what makes SE:IV so great!
I'd hope to see -a vastly improved ground combat system -a larger combat screen -mouse wheel support ( http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif ) -labour hours as a (non-storable) resource (but transferable!) -supply transfer -colapsable, moving, and cycling wormholes -non-wormhole movement between systems -planets orbiting stars as the months progress -placement choices for satelites and bases around planets and moons -orbital movement of satelites and bases during combat (speed depending on planet size and orbital height) -"jury rigging" and "modular" components, allowing the non-retrofit addition of individual components(could then sell "modular" components, rather than whole ships. Could choose to 'jury rig' on unique components from captured ships rather than repairing or analysing the ship) just some thoughts [ July 10, 2002, 00:54: Message edited by: jimbob ] |
Re: Space Empires 5
What I would love to see in SEV.
The multi quadrant map idea. Basically, you have 5 or more maps that are the current size up too 255 systems each, and each one of these 5 maps has a WP to one of the other maps. So when you enter the WP, you leave the Quadrant your in, and move to a new one. Ground Combat. Basically it would work just like Space Combat does now except it would take place on the surface of a planet. If you defeat the planet defenders, you capture the capital, and thus the planet. Space Combat. 3d yes, but it would mean that no more custom ship sets could be built unless you had the software that Aaron uses to create the sets. So I would stick with what works. Political Improvements Basically revamp the entire political system to include demenour tabs that can be selected to tell the AI or other player how your are feeling. Polite - Please leave X system. Aggitated - Please leave X system. Angery - Leave X system. Hotile - Get out of X system Now. etc. The AI would interpt the demenours and respond accordingly. Wheel mouse support. A Withdraw from Combat before entering combat feature. Fog of war that looks like a star map. Keep all of the systems hidden until you explore them. You only see the systems on the quadrant map that you have explored. The ability to set each individual races starting tech level The ability to specifically set the number of AI controlled empires and neutral races. More neutral races. (6 is a bit low) [ July 10, 2002, 01:21: Message edited by: Atrocities ] |
Re: Space Empires 5
I know what everyone wants:
A scenario editor! |
Re: Space Empires 5
"Pirates?"
The P&N mod settles that, but I'd like it to be on the normal game. An actual use for garrisons and Light Cruisers. "How about a larger map to explore?" The maps are large enough as it is... if you want it to be large, anyways. "-a vastly improved ground combat system" "Ground Combat. Basically it would work just like Space Combat does now except it would take place on the surface of a planet. If you defeat the planet defenders, you capture the capital, and thus the planet." You want that, go play Imperium Galatica. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Well, one of the coolest features in IG2 is 3D combat; especially the planetary combats. Even though I don't expect 3D, I'd like to see where we have to actually design effective ground units and test them. (And give weapon platforms a whole new workload) "-a larger combat screen" What's larger than Full Screen? "Space Combat. 3d yes, but it would mean that no more custom ship sets could be built unless you had the software that Aaron uses to create the sets." Leave combat as it is now, but make the strategies more effective. Especially Priorities. Also, if you want 3D, I suggest you put that in the Combat Replay. "-non-wormhole movement between systems" Ugh, and turn this thing into another Stars remake? No offense to all that like stars, but movement was confusing. Warp points make it simple, and give whole new strategies. [ July 10, 2002, 01:47: Message edited by: TerranC ] |
Re: Space Empires 5
Inactive Ministers and petitioners from planets (think Sim City 3000)
|
Re: Space Empires 5
"Political Improvements
Basically revamp the entire political system to include demenour tabs that can be selected to tell the AI or other player how your are feeling. Polite - Please leave X system. Aggitated - Please leave X system. Angery - Leave X system. Hotile - Get out of X system Now" ahh.. you can already do this. Well, to the AI anyway, but human players should be smart enough to figure it out from your message http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Phoenix-D |
Re: Space Empires 5
a small request, a delete save game button on the save game screen.... would make it easier for us old timers... some more work on drones makeing them more useful and affective,
just some ideas mac |
Re: Space Empires 5
Id want to see a full 3d game, but well, that is a little harder to do
animated planets and stars would be very cool |
Re: Space Empires 5
Nobody mentioned firing arcs? Or Shield & Armor arcs to match?
Smarter combat strategies. Programmable perhaps? Write your own strategy using pseudocode? IF enemy.shields < 300 THEN "Move to range 1" "Fire shield depleters" "Attempt capture" ELSE "Move to Max Range" "Fire all weapons" "Move to Run Away" ENDIF [ July 10, 2002, 04:43: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ] |
Re: Space Empires 5
Fog of war that looks like a star map. Keep all of the systems hidden until you explore them. You only see the systems on the quadrant map that you have explored.
I don't know about the races you play, but mine have invented telescopes. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif Actually... I'd like to be able to "explore" systems with large telescopes and scanning arrays located in other systems. Make them have limited range, of course. [ July 10, 2002, 06:20: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ] |
Re: Space Empires 5
Options, options, and more options. More racial characteristics, more components, more facilities, more ship sizes, more troops. Don't get me wrong though, I'm satisfied with what is continually offered for another year or so.
The ability for a race to start at different epochs. Example: primitive races (nuetrals that other races can uplift and bless with star flight)or easily subjugate. Wolfling races that are just emerging onto the scene, that must quickly learn to adapt or be swallowed up by the bigger fish. Advanced races that know the turf, probably have a few systems already, fighting their first interstellar wars. Type III Galactic races, the overseares, the ones that watch over all of the minions, perhaps boosting a primitive race, wiping out a careless advanced race, preparing to move onto that next Galaxy as proposed by Attrocities. These could all be figured out during the game set up screen. Sure the game balance is all screwed up, but isn't life in general anyways. One Last thing that would be interesting is the addition of special items that could make one planet a valuable and strategic resource. Ex: planets that produce two to three times the normal high end planet in a given resource. Perhaps discovering a highly adapted primitive race that can quantify output by two or three fold. Something worth fighting over anyways. Ohh, and finding derelict space craft too, would be fun. Gives that wolfing race an actual chance to quickly become superior in a game. Pehaps finding a fleet, alls one needs to do is poor in some resources and wham - insta fleet- ready to go and kick your obnoxious, overbearing, subjugating, superior next door neighbor. |
Re: Space Empires 5
I also like the idea of Imperator Fyron's telescope idea. Or a type of SETI program that gives one a bit of a heads up before one sends ships blindly out into the great void.
Telescope facilities or arrays to perhaps determine what is next door. How many planets and atmosphere types, and sizes, perhaps an indication of intillegence could be detected as is being proposed for the next generation of telescope we ourselves are working on. (Detecting specific spectrums which give clue to life). Of course the more one researches, the farther one can see. Wouldn't even have to leave your home system. SETI facilities could pinpoint sources of intelligence and give one a beacon to stear towards or away from. Also there could be an anti-SETI program also, keeping those prying ears at bay and your blossoming empire secretly expands. |
Re: Space Empires 5
"...He is smart. He will make us go faster....".
|
Re: Space Empires 5
What's that mean Gil? I am confused. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif
|
Re: Space Empires 5
Reference to a STTNG Episode where this "not so smart" "Wolfish" race succeeded in getting Geordi over to their ship, only for it to be a ruse to have him improve their systems.
EDIT+ I guess a more accurate quote would be, "He is smart...He will make us strong..." [ July 10, 2002, 08:05: Message edited by: Gil Hamilton ] |
Re: Space Empires 5
Before I go to sleep...
Electronic Warfare. Other than your sensors, sensor jammers, or your average cloaking: -Hacking of computer systems to transfer Intel or Research points -Comm disarray with a single ship -No shileds; disable sensors Kinda like Black Lance Ships in WC4. Would be fun for hunting parties. |
Re: Space Empires 5
More internal diplomacy, for example a tax rate for your empire, maybe per system, or even per planet.
Certain laws you could pass which modify happinces, troop morale, production etc. Ministers with different personalities, and assasinable (is that a word?), like in MOO (no, not the cow, the game http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ) A non-tiled combat map, let the ships go wherever there is room. Ground combat, like there is space combat. Precombat fase, where you can deploy your satellites/mines/bases. Scriptable AI, like SJ said, in pseudocode for example. Naive primitive population on planets which you could subdue, or somehow recruit to fight for you (different combat modifiers), or sell as slaves throughout your empire. And some "famous" desires: Components which generate research/intel points Cloakable planets Racial traits should be kept once an alien race is captured. Different ("working") more usefull emmisive armor |
Re: Space Empires 5
Great ideas everyone. I can say i like them all, well, almost.
What i would suggest is an option to play "real politics" in which your type of government (choosable) would affect much. Example: Dictatorship: Full control over the empire, but penalties in economy and civ. You have no ministers to play with. Democracy: Your control is reduced, you have no direct control over parts of your empire, namely your planets, civ ships and such. You receive bonuses in various civ. parts like research and intel. While still lacking control of several parts in the better governments you can still choose the personality of the ministers controlling each on of the planets. What i would like to see the most is petitioners like in SC3k as Hadrian suggested. Say people living in a harsh environment would requie CIP (Climate Improvement Planet) and if you do not give them what they want the thing they will grow unhappy. Also representatives from the captured races demanding better protection, liberty and such. Oh yeah, if i mention that, there reay should be an option to grant complete liberty to a planet under your control creating new empires. Event system should be created, that would enchance the game. Say you establish a colony with a colony ship transfered via a wormhole and have ~20 unexplored system separate you. The colony will lose contact and break off from you though later they just *might* join you. Recalls me of another thing, it would be great to incarporate communication into the game, meaning that systems would requie comm centers to transfer commands from the "center" and ships going on deep space missions would requie communication vessels to go with them. Creates a whole new dimension to the game. Also non-controllable events should be created with that say if your fleet loses its communication fleet it would try to break off from its current position to nearest populated area. And Last thing, i dont like the idea of the whole system being scanned by the first time you enter it. It would requie specialized equipment and time to scan the whole system or sending scouts to fly in the system and scout it (think starcraft exploration). ok im done |
Re: Space Empires 5
What I do NOT want to see in SE5 :
3D Real time What I would like to see in SE5 or a future patch - enhanced ground combat - enhanced IA scripting as stated by Suicide Junkie - rework of the curently useless drones |
Re: Space Empires 5
What I'd like to see is multiple facility sizes ... stay with me on this one.
The resupply depot should be small. The spaceport ... small or medium or big, whatever works for balance Spaceyard? ... big Units Only Space Yard ... small or medium Miners, refiners and farms ... small medium and large -- each with a proportional resource production. Now ... return to the game the ability to colonize asteroids. Maybe a small asteroid field can only hold a small miner, or a resupply depot. Resupply at ateroids is very usefull to the AI. Everyone knows the AI can't handle black holes well -- but if there are two asteroid systems next to each other ... the AI can't cross them. A medium asteroid file could hold the space port ... but how will you defend it? This could make asteroids more interesting. That tiny, no atmosphere planet that only holds one facility now could be more interesting if it held a resupply base, spaceport, and a miner at 1/3 production level or do you just build an ordinary miner -- your call. Remember, if the planets are moving from month to month -- resupply depots are much more important. So many more ideas -- but I'll calm down for now |
Re: Space Empires 5
Well, gosh. There are lots of things that people might think of as 'SE V' that could still be done in SE IV. Space monsters, for example. As far as what I expect in SE V, I can only give broad outlines because the different starting points or 'frame of reference' will influence each other and create differences that are impossible to predict.
The first simple ideas I have are to ditch the stupid attempt at a 'kewl' looking interface. We don't need a special set of mouse cursors, the default is fine. It was (and is still) a waste of MM's time to code all those custom interface elements, like the file save and load dialogs, when Windows has standard ones which work better. Deh! Go back to Windows standard interface and let people play the game in the user interface they have customized for themselves. Gamewise, add loads more 'simulation' detail to the map. Stars should have mass and internal dynamics that determine their behavior. Star size and type should affect radiation levels in the system and the performance of solar harnessing technologies. And the climates of planets! Planets should have gravity, radiation levels, and temperature ranges as well as the present atmosphere types. Planet usage should be more dynamic as we discussed in another thread. The same space should be used for population, facilities, and cargo space. Population needs to be more 'true to type', keeping racial characteristics and holding to an 'attitude' towards their conquerors even after the empire they came from is completely gone. The system map needs to grow somehow. If we have to resort to a 'windowed' system like comabt then that's what we have to do. A system ought to have a radius of at least 10 sectors. Going to a coordinate system might be better than trying to keep the little discreet squares. Combat needs to be scaled up even further as well. The increase in damage numbers for both weapons and components allowed smaller shades of difference in combat power but ranges are still pitifully small and simple. We need to have ranges measured at 10X SE III values just like damage is. And as we all know, the AI needs thousand different improvements. Mainly it needs a memory but it also needs to be smarter in tactical combat and in simple tasks like choosing what colonies to place in a system. [ July 10, 2002, 16:56: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ] |
Re: Space Empires 5
In SE5 I too dont wanna have any kind of
Realtime 3D and similar teenie crap. If anybody wants to play RTS, he should goto Imperium Galactica or MOO3 (tactical combat). He should not waste his short attention span and mouse clicking talents on a great stratetic TB game series like SE. Klaus PS: sorry for my bad english |
Re: Space Empires 5
Quote:
The UI set SEIV apart from it's predecesors, for good and bad. It gave it the look of a professional product. SEIV with the SEIII interface would have pleased many SEIII fans, but it would have given SEIV the same shareware look that SEIII had. Of course function is more important than form, playability is more important than eye candy. But looks are important when you are trying to get reviews, and expand the user base. Geoschmo [ July 10, 2002, 16:04: Message edited by: geoschmo ] |
Re: Space Empires 5
Quote:
Frigate 200 Destroyer 400 Light Cruser 800 Cruiser 1600 etc. I also would like this turn based. There is pleanty of real-time 4x gaming out there, I think SE5 would fill the niche of turn based. On the other hand... I thought that combat in Star Fleet Command was going to Rot when I found out it was going to be real time, but I was wrong, they married real-time and tactics gracefully but that is so rare its not even funny.... Any word from "offical" sources? Is SE5 a possibility???? [ July 10, 2002, 16:17: Message edited by: Iron Giant ] |
Re: Space Empires 5
Big ships should take up more sectors in the combat map! Like in MOO2! (And stars should be bigger than planets... say, perhaps there should be some sort of penalty for flying too close to a star...)
|
Re: Space Empires 5
Scanners to work on planets so you can tell IF you can KICK BUTT before you get there and loose the whole dang fleet http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif
|
Re: Space Empires 5
Quote:
Planets within the orbit could be destroyed or they could continue to exist -- just orbiting with the sphere. If they're enemy planets then they're simply blockaded. [ January 24, 2003, 21:38: Message edited by: Arkcon ] |
Re: Space Empires 5
I'd like to see randomized damage: instead of a fixed amount, let the listed damage be the average at that range.
Warp point and storm damage should be randomized, too. You shouldn't be able to tell the exact amount of armor you need to get through safely. "Borderless" combat screen. |
Re: Space Empires 5
Many of the suggestions I see here would be welcome additions to this great game, however, I see many of the posters saying "like such-and-such game". I don't want to see SE V like any other game. It is the individuality of this game that sets it apart from others. If you want the play style of another game, go buy the other game and leave this one to its greatness.
|
Re: Space Empires 5
Gandalph, I agree with you to a point. I think it's ok to add features that are used and liked in other games, as long as SEV also remains distinctly SE. The thing that sets SE apart from the pack of 4X games, and the thing that SEV simply must have in my mind to retain that mantle, is the customizability. It was hinted at in SE2, came to life in SEIII, and truely blossomed in SEIV. That is the one critical factor which has to be kept IMHO.
Geoschmo |
Re: Space Empires 5
When you put ships on patrol in a system, they would automatically try and intercept any enemy fleet entering, this would of course be restricted to their movement allowances or you could even have several strategies for them, such as, 1 identify-do nothing, 2 intercept, 3 flee to nearest friendly in system base, etc.
just some ideas mac |
Re: Space Empires 5
Diplomacy change - treaties require mutual recognition of claims, so the deal establishing the treaty has to divy up the contested systems somehow (with "share" as an available option for any particular system as part of the deal). Once the treaty is in place, whichever party claims a new system first puts it off-limits to claims by treaty partners. No colonizing in systems claimed by treaty partners. No trespassing in systems claimed by treaty partners unless you have a treaty granting access. Ideally, you could either negociate right of passage agreements on an individual basis or a general agreement (automatically granted to the stronger side in a Protectorate or Subjugation, but only to the stronger side). Military treaties would be in two levels, the first being just a pledge to go to war against the aggressor if your ally is attacked, the higher allowing the partners mutual right of passage to the entirety of each other's empires plus refueling rights.
Generally, a more EU-like diplomacy system include the very large number of independent nations (I think 208 possible in EU2). Of course, there would need to be way over 255 possible systems. I think I'd like to say up to 200 races and over 2000 systems. Hexes instead of squares for both the system & tactical maps. Realistic and much larger system maps, something akin to the system maps in Starfire. Asteroids should be actual belts. A much larger tactical map, so big that a ship of the highest possible speed can run in a straight line without hitting the edge before the turn limit. If you are out of weapons range and the enemy has no ship faster than your slowest, you should be able to hit "retreat" and not play out all the tactical turns. A solution to the missile dance. My preference is proportional movement a la Star Fleet Battles. An acceptable substitute would be the ability to give your ships "opportunity fire" orders with a range limit, a la Steel Panthers. Maybe an option to have it work either way, the former being better for single player and the later for Online MP. An optional type of star drive that works without warp points. You would only be able to activate it from a sector at the edge of the system map. You could jump to any system within range (range limit increasing with tech) within a certain arc centered on the sector from which you depart. You would appear in the sector of your choice in the target system within an arc around the straight line between the stars. Of course, you would not see the contents of the target system before picking your entry sector, unless you already had something there. Using game set-up,you should be able to sel;ect which method (jump drive or warp points) works in your game, or maybe both if you like. The ability to nest fleets. |
Re: Space Empires 5
Asteroids should be actual belts.
Can be modded. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Check out Fyron's Quadrant Mod. |
Re: Space Empires 5
Seeing how SE got it's start from the pen and paper game Starfire (which is actually going digital from what I hear - though as a "quasi real time"), how about Starfire "jump engines"...
Still use warp points, but you can jump in system by 1 or 2 squares... Would make minefields actual fields, and Warp Point defense would suddenly become more interesting. I agree with the borderless combat map, and I could go either way on the interface (though standard windows is easier to hide at work http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ) Another idea: Space Yards with multiple docks/slips/whatever. You can build multiple ships at once, but the space yard resources are divided among them. So you wouldn't have to scrap that half done Battlecruiser if you needed another escort or transport in a hurry. |
Re: Space Empires 5
Quote:
Originally SEIV had something like this where you could move a project up and the work already done would get applied towards the new project. That was taken out because it was considered a way to cheat because you could start work on an expensive ship that you never intended to build, and then switch it at the Last minute to an expensive ships that you wanted, but didn't have the tech for when you started. This would eliminate that cause you couldn't change the design once it's in the queue, but still allow flexibility. As long as you didn't take the project completely out of the queue it could keep the work accumulated while you work on other projects that you start from scratch. Much like intel or research quese now operate. And if you could have the excess construction left over after one ship was done to go towards the next ship in line... Geoschmo [ July 10, 2002, 20:31: Message edited by: geoschmo ] |
Re: Space Empires 5
I don't think Space Space yards should do that; they already have low rates as it is!
But for planetary space yards... It would be very nice. Especially for massively populated ones with happiness stocked up with the latest space yard. This way, you can keep churning out starships, and your enemy has a new important target to destroy. |
Re: Space Empires 5
Some items I would like to see for Space Empires V include:
</font>
|
Re: Space Empires 5
Quote:
A lot of these ideas are great but I don't want to see this game turned into a micromanagement nightmare either. Make some "improvements" optional. I'd hate to see the game turned into a resource hog too. 3D is fine but don't go overboard, I don't want to have to rebuild (again http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ) this Frankenstein computer of mine. I'd like to see additional and more flexible abilities for modders to exploit... er, use. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif But I think the most important thing would be not to rush the game to developement. I think that's what is killing a lot of games, rushing to get a product on the shelves rather than working to put a quality product on the shelves. |
Re: Space Empires 5
Editors, more and user friendly. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
The excisting map editor is great, but incrediably time consuming. A couple of fellows are working on component or mod editors that are starting to make modding much more friendly to the computer illiterate types, such as me. If perhaps one big editor where compiled so that an individual could easily create new maps, new planets, new components, facilities, ships, scenerios(so one wouldn't have to actually play the computer player to get them advanced and established while keeping everyone else at bay) ect. Yeah, that would be nice. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif |
Re: Space Empires 5
[quote]Originally posted by geoschmo:
Quote:
Possibly even allow only 4 build projects for Shipyard I's, 8 for Shipyard II's, and all 12 for Shipyard III's. (maybe 8, 12, and 16 for the Emporal Shipyard I, II, and III respectively ... ?). |
Re: Space Empires 5
SE5
NO 3D, NO REALTIME Would like to see Game startup 0ptions: Ability to scramble Race/characteristics ie: When you meet the Norak, early on you know its missles, missles, missles and plan accordingly. Darleks you know intell is coming, It would be interesting to not always know what the race you met was like. Trade: It would be nice to have something for transports to carry back to the home system. Dilithium chrystals, EEEE spice, stuff like that. Research: Occasional blind alley research, Physics doesn't always lead to PPB, maybe its astrophyiscs or stellar harnessing. Have it as a variable if this option selected. It would make research more interesting. |
Re: Space Empires 5
Nice ideas, but I think there are more key features:
- Citizens that eat and can starve. - Governments, please: different types of politics, economy, religion, etc. that can be changed during the game (revolution problems and anarchy included). Political factions and the like. - Allied victory. - Retreating from combat (with the possibility of being caught depending on speed and crew experience). - A form of currency along with the 3 resources. - A peace treaty. Facilities, technologies... all can be done editing txts. I think the above is more important. greetings http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif |
Re: Space Empires 5
I agree with:
- changing the squares to hexes (in all map levels) - adding turning radius (and maybe firing arcs) - making asteroids colonizable again - components that generate resources - jump engines (or jump reactor, or something); along with at least an option (or racial ability) to have a jump-capable ship carry other ships through the warp point I'd also like to see more uses for sensors; maybe special sensor components that can improve offense/defense for an entire fleet (or even just ships within a given radius); sensors that can disrupt (or enhance) targetting systems on seekers; and require special sensors to look at a ship's design during combat. That Last could be tricky, since it should also include the option to "fill in" information as the ship performs certain functions (firing a weapon is a pretty obvious indicator that the weapon exists & what Version/mount it's using). I'd like to see the ability to tow ships/bases around the map (using a special "tug" hull, maybe). Along with diplomatic options mentioned by others, add options to have races get angry about the use of certain weapons (star destroyers, black hole generators, etc.), angry toward races that "glass" planets, angry at particular races just because of history/racial abilities/demeanor/culture; have races get happy towards races that destroy black holes/storms/nebulas or create stars/planets. Improve the AI so it actually takes advantage of training facilities, remote mining and ring/sphereworld generators. (I think this is more hardcoding than AI scripting, since it's easy to mod the AI to build the above items, just hard to make the AI use them effectively). Components that allow for population growth, and have that population affect the efficiency of components that generate resources (and affect efficiency of space-borne shipyards). Since SE4 already requires spaceports AND a path back to the rest of the empire to make generated resources available to the empire, add two things: first, the ability to store those generated resources locally and either transfer manually (freighters) or automatically once a spaceport/path is available. Second, add a requirement for at least one space station or colony in all intervening systems for a "path" to be established. In other words, you'd have to build a space station in a nebula system in order to gain resources from the colonies on the other side of that nebula. This would make black hole systems a problem for everyone, not just the AI... |
Re: Space Empires 5
Weapons that have an area effect damage. Something to break up tight formations, screw up fighter swarms, and just plain wreak havoc. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
|
Re: Space Empires 5
- Allied victory.
This is exactly the same as the "Peace for 0.1 years" victory condition. It requires that all empires have met and have trade alliance or better with every other race. |
Re: Space Empires 5
Ok, a lot of what I would like to see in a possible attempt at SEV has already been said. So, to keep from being a broken record, I'm going to attempt to rate them on likelyhood.
Likely:</font>[*]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Expanded population properties - populations have specific environmental tolerances, abilities, attitudes, etc., that remain with them throughout the game. No more getting a different empire's population, which automatically becomes clones of your own population that breathes different air. Some attributes of population: size (space-faring mice, or perhaps elephants?), strength (one elephant can drag a tree... how many mice does it take?), *I can't think of any others at the moment, but you get the idea*.</font>[*]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">More Detailed Planetary Stats - related to the one above. Planets should have varying amounts of space (with population, cargo, and facilities taking up the same space), gravity (with certain populations only tolerating a specific range of gravity), atmospheric gas DENSITY (a population might need X density of methane, but anything more than Y density of oxygen is poisonous, and total density has to be more than Z, etc), temperature, radiation or lack thereof, planetary volatility (think earthquakes, storms, volcanoes, etc.).</font>[*]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No limit on total empires - I'm not saying allow 100 empires on game startup (although some might want to do that for one insane reason or another). Currently, if through the course of a game, the total number of empires that ever existed reaches 20, no more may come into existance. Change the setup of empires to be contained in a linked list, instead of what now appears to be an array. Perhaps have an option for a completely new AI to pop up around turn 150 in some forgotten corner of the quadrant.</font>[*]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Randomness to damage - As it is now, weapons either have a direct hit, or a direct miss. I would just once like to see that APB cause 17kT damage instead of 30kT, because of a slight targeting mistake. Have the ability for components to be disabled (well, you slagged the torpedo tubes pretty good, but you didn't destroy that Last 1kT, so it can magically shoot at you still), with different components having differing amounts of tolerance to damage. Also, differing types of damage, i.e., flinging a big chunk up depleted uranium at high velocities is going to cause quite a different type of damage than, say, a beam-type weapon, or an explosion. Have shields work on a % basis... A DUC pellet comes flying in, shields are weakened a little, and take some damage away from the impact. A beam is partially blocked, but some gets through, etc. The different damage types, and % defense would actually probably be in this next section, though... Hey, it could happen:</font>[*]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Seperate AI engine - Whether it be a more complex scripting thing (more work for Aaron, to make an interpreter for it), or somehow using outside programs/DLLs, have the ability to directly manipulate the AI. One AI in a certain situation could think it's in "Infrastructure" phase, and another in the same situation could think it's in "Attack" phase. One could have this pattern of movement, another could have that... It would be nice to completely model the AI behaviour, but I don't think it would be done. Definitely more likely for a combat-only than for the rest of the game.</font>[*]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Coordinate system for maps - this would be an awesome improvement to the current grid system. However, I don't think it's too likely to happen. For one, this was requested a lot for SEIV (along with hex-grids, if it had to be grids), and it didn't happen there. When you think about it, it's just a whole lot easier to make a grid system than a coordinate system (or a hex-grid).</font>[*]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Newtonian Movement - the coordinate system would be made just that much better if ships, units, etc. had inertia. Coordinates and inertia, I think, would be a possibility to SEV. Add in gravity, and it gets really iffy... but that would be really cool. If all of that's put in, it only makes sense to have stellar bodies orbit. But I know how much work it would have to be to create a system like that, and I'm quite content with Q-N movement at the moment http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif WOW! That'd be neat, but it's not going to happen http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif </font>[*]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Firing Arcs - coordinates are pretty much a prerequisite for this to work, and I've already said I'm not counting on coordinate-based maps when/if SEV is released. It would be very cool to have firing arcs, but there's the extra work needed to make such a system, and the problem of creating an even bigger learning curve for the game; for both humans and AI.</font>[*]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">3-D anything - I just don't see this happening. It's gotta be hard enough to work it in just two dimensions, and then you have to figure out a way to present it. Aaron seems to be limited to two dimensions, from looking at all his work thus far. And, just some other things that I'm not going to rate/comment on, and would like:</font>[*]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Area effect damage</font>[*]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Simultaneous construction projects</font>[*]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Starting tech levels (ok, small comment; perhaps just allow X amount of research points that are allocated to various areas BEFORE 2400.0, AKA first turn. Instead of X tech levels) Things that are just yuck:</font>[*]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Real-Time (difficult to pull off correctly, and "correctly" varies greatly from person to person)</font>[*]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Government modifiers (this should be handled with the individual races, IMHO. It would basically be another "Culture modifier", and anything beyond that is way too drastic).</font>[*]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Tactical Ground Combat (I always thought that this would basically be either a seperate game within the game, or completely useless, there is no real happy medium) I've missed quite a few things, but I like most of the ideas in this thread, so that gives a general idea http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif |
Re: Space Empires 5
"More Detailed Planetary Stats - related to the one above. Planets should have varying amounts of space (with population, cargo, and facilities taking up the same space), gravity (with certain populations only tolerating a specific range of gravity), atmospheric gas DENSITY (a population might need X density of methane, but anything more than Y density of oxygen is poisonous, and total density has to be more than Z, etc), temperature, radiation or lack thereof, planetary volatility (think earthquakes, storms, volcanoes, etc.)."
Why. Can we say "micromanagement HELL?" Newtonian movement and gravity: I know of very few *sims* that even try, and these guys only have to deal with a few ships at a time. SE needs to deal with hundreds (and don't even suggest dropping the scale just for this..) "Coordinate system for maps - this would be an awesome improvement to the current grid system. However, I don't think it's too likely to happen. For one, this was requested a lot for SEIV (along with hex-grids, if it had to be grids), and it didn't happen there. When you think about it, it's just a whole lot easier to make a grid system than a coordinate system (or a hex-grid)." How is this any different than what we have now? A grid system is just a slightly modifed cordinate system with low grain (i.e. you don't get 1.45352653, just 1) Phoenix-D [ July 12, 2002, 05:39: Message edited by: Phoenix-D ] |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:35 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.