|
Proportions....
Fighter have WAAAAAAAYYYYYYY too much defense, it's nearly impossible to hit 'em even with PDC.
I could kill a small squad of LCs easier than a stack of ten of them things. |
Re: Proportions....
Research Energy Pulse Weapons 1.
|
Re: Proportions....
And why is it set so AI's won't surrender except against the most absolutely absurd odds (10000 to 1). Means there nothing left to do with them but destroy them and that's just a boring waste http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif
|
Re: Proportions....
you starting to talk me into trying this mod. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
|
Re: Proportions....
Quote:
Proprotions changes the rules so completely, the conventional rules of "who has an advantage" don't really apply anymore. I just started playing it on PBW -- and I'm still trying to figure out what to do. |
Re: Proportions....
Quote:
I find it impossible to worry about things like gaining an advantage over my opponents because I just love building all those little cities and agrarian centres and things. Playing to maximum efficiency I could fill all planets with mineral megaplexes and stuff and probably slaughter the AI, but then where would all my ppl live? In my current vsAI game in Proportions the Drushocka glassed one of my worlds and its moon: total casualties were a half-dozen ships, and about 9 million pop. I didn't even have a completed facility there. Not much of a loss in standard se4, but I was so FURIOUS- http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif I really build up a relationship with my empire in Proportions. All the military stuff becomes a bit of a sideline for me. I guess really I'm a sim-city guy at heart. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif |
Re: Proportions....
Quote:
|
Re: Proportions....
Maybe SE4 by Committee should have been a Proportions game, to enhance the realism feel of it... nah, it's slow enough as it is! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
|
Re: Proportions....
Quote:
Typical anti-ship ships, especially larger ships, may have a hard time snagging fighters. That's intentional. However, there are several effective options for combatting them, besides other fighters. The smaller ships get to-hit bonuses, and there are Small and PD mounts, and lots of levels of sensors, and weapons with to-hit bonuses, etc etc. If I get time to do 3.0, I may expand the fighter tech tree a bit, though, and adjust things a bit, so it takes more research to get the better fighters, and add other toys. PvK |
Re: Proportions....
Quote:
1) Blockade their homeworld 2) Build many large ships, even unarmed colony ships, causing the score to tip extremely, even though the high-score empire doesn't really pose a particular threat to the AI. 3) or other silliness Also, an AI surrender of an intact homeworld, particularly to a human player, is a major game event with major effects in Proportions. It also allows both homeworlds to directly add their research, multiplying research rate, which is something the rest of the mod tries to tone down. So, the idea is if you want that massive prize, you may have to actually earn it and not take advantage of AI foolishness. PvK |
Re: Proportions....
Oh, and of course, you can also try capturing the planet via invasion.
|
Re: Proportions....
Quote:
|
Re: Proportions....
I like how fighters are handled in Proportions.
They are tough to hit by regular weapons (even PDC) and you must build dedicated anti-fighters ships. Even better way is to use fighters against fighters ! They have equal attack bonus ! I also like how PvK design fighter weapons. In short, there are two Groups: high accuracy, low damage weapons like small APB, DUC. They are optimal for interceptors but not very efficient against ships. Second group are less accurate, high damage anti-ship weapons like small rocket pods or antimatter torpedos. It really forces you to build both fighters and bombers, not just generic SE fighter ! In fact, fighters are my second most favorite aspect of Proportions after planet development. |
Re: Proportions....
Thanks oleg.
PTF, yes to racial fighter toys, and probably something for Religious - I don't know exactly what a "talisman engine" would be. Mainly I'd probably flesh out the fighter tech tree more, giving less capable early fighters, and requiring research into specific abilities. I'd probably add some anti-fighter seekers and some countermeasure components. I'd probably make engine variants too which more closely associate speed and maneuverability with defensive and offensive bonuses. Also might revisit the to-hit advantages for the heavy weapons, damage done by PD, and damage resistance of fighters, to further accentuate the differences between anti-fighter, anti-ship, and PD weapons. I do think it seems to work pretty well as is, though. In Fryon's Adamant PBW game, I have been having some fun massive multi-turn battles with the Druschocka involving fighters and a wide range of ship sizes on both sides, and lots of missile boats slowly wearing through PDC. PvK |
Re: Proportions....
i think a talisman engine runs on a prayer. sort of like a chevy nova.
|
Re: Proportions....
Quote:
|
Re: Proportions....
Sure, but a couple thousand fighters still require over a million resources, and corresponding construction time, and ships to move them between systems. I can think of lots of things for that investment that are also scary.
PvK |
Re: Proportions....
Quote:
That or 4-5 CA makes ship almost immune to average sized fighter stack, say 10, if fighters use damage 4 weapons. |
Re: Proportions....
True. However, you can get much larger stacks if you launch during strategic movement, particularly from planets. This deployment method has similar effects to deploying heavy anti-ship weapons, but less efficiently. That is, these mobs become more effective against ships than other fighters, because while they can concentrate fire to bLast through heavy armor plating, if they fight other fighters which are deployed in smaller Groups, they will tend to waste shots, since they can only target one enemy fighter group at a time, while the fighters in smaller Groups will never waste firepower firing into a huge stack of fighters.
Also remember that it's not hard to make ships with lots of structure and/or shields in Proportions, using armored structure, which at lower tech levels is very cheap (20/40/80 mins for 60/90/120 structure in a 10kT component). I think there are several designs and methods which can deal efficiently with fighters, without making them at all obsolete. Fleets that are unprepared for fighters though can get completely smashed by them, though. This is exactly what you see in a lot of sci-fi, btw. That is, practically any sci-fi which includes fighters, makes them quite dangerous to ships, especially if they lack their own fighters or other countermeasures. PvK |
Re: Proportions....
Quote:
|
Re: Proportions....
PvK, your 1kT troops bring up another idea, maybe this is possible:
What if you could create 1kT Fighters which in fact are 1-man invasion troops with a backpack jet propulsion (I am not sure about the term)? That would be a nice one. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif |
Re: Proportions....
PTF, are you talking about planetary fighters, a variety of "troops" that help capture planets?
PvK |
Re: Proportions....
Quote:
1) Blockade their homeworld 2) Build many large ships, even unarmed colony ships, causing the score to tip extremely, even though the high-score empire doesn't really pose a particular threat to the AI. 3) or other silliness Also, an AI surrender of an intact homeworld, particularly to a human player, is a major game event with major effects in Proportions. It also allows both homeworlds to directly add their research, multiplying research rate, which is something the rest of the mod tries to tone down. So, the idea is if you want that massive prize, you may have to actually earn it and not take advantage of AI foolishness. PvK</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Aye, but as it is, the AI is basically unable to surrender as it would require at minimum 40,000 points. Surrender, I'm pretty sure, it disablable in the game settings, so it's kind of redundant and removes the choice. PTF, you mean a fighter that can invade a planet? As long as fighters can hold cargo that should be doable, give them one cargo so they can hold a single troop. However, chances are fighters can't http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif |
Re: Proportions....
Quote:
If there were a way to disable surrender by default in settings.txt, I might set that for Proportions, but relying on players to find and read instructions in my readme file to get their games to work correctly would result in many players having the wrong settings. Fighters can't invade planets, and no units can carry other units (unless they're really Ships pretending to be units). PvK (edit fixed parentheses) [ January 25, 2003, 19:18: Message edited by: PvK ] |
Re: Proportions....
Quote:
PTF |
Re: Proportions....
Oh, I see - space infantry, represented by tiny fighters.
Hmmm. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Let us know how your tests go. PvK |
Re: Proportions....
Proportions Mod is Great!! SE 4 is a great game, too! I recently discovered it and I'm completely hooked!
i would like to see a new Version of proportions soon! It would be a very welcome addition to expand fighter components. I added by myself some fighter weapons: i.e. a fighter gun-pod, representing an external mounted gatling gun (it takes less space than the DUC, 2 kt, but does less damage, the range is the same) and dogfighting missiles (not much damage capacity each one, but beware when they are fired in salvos by Groups of fighters agains ships. Ships without PD donīt Last against this seekers. They make a damge of 10-12-15 (depending on its Mk Number or tech level) and medium range (7-9 units). As I said I would like to see new ideas about improving fighter tech. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif |
Re: Proportions....
Quote:
20,000 units in space, launched by 50 per square, took about 2-3 minutes in strategic combat (1.3 GHz, AMD). It looks a bit funny, like two bee swarms. The problem, as far as I have got it, if 400 grid fields are filled with units, it is hard to find a possible way through the friendly units, both swarms need a lot of time to reach the foes. Launching is a small problem also, because of the grid limits around the launching stations. The rocketeers had a few shots, about a quarter of them, but it would take more than 30 turns (I assume about 80) to finish the battle. PTF http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif |
Re: Proportions....
are we doing proportions wish lists? OK, here's mine for the next Version:
-Hive cities/ hive cultural centres/ hive components, as previously suggested. -Planet,SW & RW creation techs should require tech level 7,8 & 9 respectively in planet utilisation. Just to make those technologies even more of an overpriced ego trip=-) -The larger cities (metropolis and above) should require research in psychology - that tech area is currently only good for the urban pacification centre. It makes sense to flesh it out a little, and urban planning does require understanding of psychology. -More city/ settlement types! How about a college/ universtity/campus facility family? They could have high research output, some intel and maybe a little resource production. They could also have a (very limited) ship/ fleet training ability and perhaps some effects on population growth/ happiness. The first level would be immediately available but subsequent facilities would require the Research & urban development tech trees. -Convert the religious shrines into families of city-like facilities: for example the fate shrine would be a bit like a colonial community or minor city but with the fate shrine ability attached to it, representing a whole religious community. Then you could upgrade it to a fate temple, fate monastary (or something), and the same for the other shrines. [ January 26, 2003, 22:34: Message edited by: dogscoff ] |
Re: Proportions....
PTF, LOL, thanks for testing that. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
leo1434, thanks! If you like (you or anyone), email me your suggested components or other changes, and I will consider adding something like them. For fighters, I think I will add some more "stuff" (missiles, PD, etc) eventually when time allows, however the main change I would make for the next major Version would be for them to start out like crummy SE3 fighters - slow, weak, easy to kill, and unable to move out of the sector they are launched in. The other abilities would still be available, but would require specific research to get fast, hard-to-hit, powerful, able-to-zoom-around-a-system-for-months Versions. The engines would be the source of most of the combat bonuses, and would probably come in different sizes as well, so fast fighters would be the hard ones to hit. They would all take even less damage to kill than currently, and anti-fighter weapons would do less damage, while fighter-against-ship weapons would mostly be too inaccurate to hit other fighters. (i.e., like it is now, but more extreme, and requiring much more specific research). dogscoff, your suggestions are mostly in line with my Foundations mod design, and some can appear in 3.0, though not in 2.5.x because folks like Fryon don't want the tech tree to change. This weekend I more or less finished 2.5.3, although I am tempted to add an anonymous ship tech area (builds ships using the generic shipset, so enemies can't easily tell the origin of gifted ships) and maybe some fun eccentric nonsense like World Ships (oh, and maybe some other evil cloaking components) before release, and I haven't really tested it much. Also I haven't done 2.5.2, which will be 2.5.3 minus the fixes to remote mining, so existing games using lots of remote mining won't be unbalanced. So, 2.5.3 is a stab at a Last Version to be compatible with existing games, and then 3.0 would (when I get time) come stomp on the nonsense that is creeping in from trying to keep things compatible, and do some larger revisions and changes. Here's the preview feature list: Version 2.5.3: -------------------------- Remote Mining Adjustments: -------------------------- * Added restriction on remote miner components per unit to two, halved structure, and doubled size of ship/base Versions. This prevents massively productive mining bases, which were possible before but were unintentionally overproductive. It also presents interesting choices between ship, base and satellite miner designs. Pre-existing bases in upgraded games will retain their former abilities (except structure). Version 2.5.2: ------------------------------------------------------------- Changes for smoother upgrades for existing games using 2.4.2: ------------------------------------------------------------- * The Fighter Carriers tech added in 2.5 now costs more, is expanded in both directions to five levels (using the Tiny and Massive carrier images from the SE4 Image Neo-Standard) and provides improved classes compared to the standard carriers. Existing carriers have their costs and to-hit penalties somewhat increased. The five new carrier classes are Escort Carrier, Advanced Light Carrier, Advanced Carrier, Advanced Heavy Carrier, and Super-Heavy Carrier. * Pre-existing special armors downgraded to compensate for their ability compared to the new armors that require specialized research, and to compensate for changes to Emissive Armor from Gold patch Version 1.78. Unlike 2.5 & 2.5.1, they can now continue to be deployed, and may be good choices for large ships (since they don't use Scale mounts and so will be smaller on large ships). --------- Gameplay: --------- * Added six levels to the new Stealth Armor tech area, allowing eventual (expensive) blocking of all Active and Passive EM scans. ------ Fixes: ------ * Fixed crippling Sergetti design bug - thanks to Oleg again! --------- Cosmetic: --------- * Changed the Large Starliner to use the "Barge" image from the SE4 Image Neo-Standard, if it is provided. * Fixed minor typo in to-hit description of some ships (said "base"). PvK |
Re: Proportions....
Starliners, I mostly do not use them unless I have not researched medium transports because of maintenance costs, to be hit chances and speed. Maybe I am missing something about them, but do they need to be balanced? Similar thoughts about starliner modules compared with the respective cargo components.
Fighters, I am still thinking about some smaller Versions, maybe 5kT or 10kT drone-like types. Anyone reading P.F.Hamiltons Armageddon series? I like the idea of combat wasps. Facility upgrade button in production queue is a problem. I know, we should be careful about it, savegame before.Is it possible to do some fine tuning about the facility families? E.g. I would like to strictly build Distribution Centers or just a space port at some planets, but with the use of the upgrade button it changes often to something else during building, like spaceport+resupply or such. Maybe you could put all of the really different things into different families? Just some thoughts to one of my favorite mods, PTF |
Re: Proportions....
Small Starliners are just there to provide the ability to move population without researching up to Med Transport. Since Med Transport is fairly quick to get, this may make them too inefficient to be a worthwhile choice, with no way to retrofit them into something efficient. In a way this makes sense, but it would be more interesting if they could be retrofit into something more efficient, although I haven't found an easy way to do so when I thought about it before. There's probably something, though.
What are you thinking about Starliner Modules? They are intended to allow the maximum population capacity per ship, as was requested by players. They're especially good in those situations where you need to get the maximum number of people off a planet in a relatively short time. They're supposed to be attractive choices for population transports, and unattractive for other transport types. As for the auto-upgrade button, I think it's a hopeless cause, because of how inflexible upgrades are in SE4. I've chosen to use them to make it possible to do some logical transformation of facilities, as requested by some players, for expensive facilities, allowing planetary development without so much scrapping. Because there are some interesting choices involved, it will almost never make sense to issue empire-wide "upgrade facilities" orders. Even in unmodded SE4, I almost always find that button to be more of a booby trap than a help. As for morphing projects in progress, I've only ever seen that when somehow the ministers seize control of the empire, through deliberate or forgetful player minister settings. I don't think the "Upgrade All Facilities" button will do that - will it? PvK |
Re: Proportions....
Quote:
Steve. |
Re: Proportions....
Quote:
His point is that you will not always want to do that in proportions, and it may even be a bad move.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Why shouldn't I be able to promote my Research Centres, eventually, into Research Megaplexes? Instead I have to knock down the Centres, build Complexes, promote those, then knockthem down to build Megaplexes. It's this kind of thing that feels counter-intuitive, and it's the one big thing in Proportions that I don't like. Steve |
Re: Proportions....
Quote:
Quote:
PTF |
Re: Proportions....
Quote:
PvK |
Re: Proportions....
OK, does anybody check Proportions with the newest SE patch ? I'm still at work and cannot do myself. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif
|
Re: Proportions....
So the new ? is how is the new patch going to effect your MOD and it's release time table.
|
Re: Proportions....
Quote:
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If I recall correctly, Starliner Modules, and high-tech Cargo Bays are both intentionally more expensive than their counterparts, because they represent attempts to do what some players asked for - the ability to use high technology to stuff as much cargo into a design as possible. The Starliner Modules help for mass exodus in minimum time (reduces build costs by distributing resource types used) and in some cases for more cost-effective population transports (both by spending orgs, and by increasing capacity per ship, which divides down the other non-cargo costs of the ship). The high-tech cargo bays are good when you want a more capacious transport of other types. Cargo Bay I remains the cheapest component for simply transporting some units, when your design has enough space that you don't feel like maximizing capacity with expensive tech. There's a similar situation with armor - you have to decide whether you want to max out structure or save some resources to buy something else as well. Quote:
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That's what I was asking... sigh. I didn't realize it would change facilities in progress. Unfortunately, this adds another tradeoff where players who want to spend time fighting the interface can get better performance. I guess it has the trade-off that you often won't want to upgrade everything, so often it will do more damage than it gains. One reason it would be hard to make all upgrades always desirable (if I wanted to) is that there is a big difference in Proportions between construction rates of small colonies versus developed worlds. A high-tech homeworld can upgrade Research Center I to Research Megaplex III in 0.4 turns, on average. But a new colony would take much longer, and will get much better results in terms of time and in terms of cost and in terms of output, by building a bunch of Research Center I's. Another reason is that I added trade-offs of investment - expensive long-term performance versus cheap short-term performance. In the middle of a war, it often makes more sense to build weapons and fast/cheap facilities rather than expensive terraforming and infrastructure development. PvK |
Re: Proportions....
Mainly the new patch is going to make 3.0 possible, since I have been meaning to add and change weapons to take advantage of the new damage types now that they work correctly.
I think I'll hope that this week you guys test and find any issues, and make any brilliant Last-minute suggestions. Maybe I'll post a beta 2.5.3 tonight so you guys can test that and give feedback, and then I'll try to post the final 2.5.2 and 2.5.3 this weekend, if time allows. PvK |
Re: Proportions....
Ok, I made a quick beta Version for you folks. 2.5.3BETA is available at: THIS LINK. It includes the modded 3rd party races and everything, so it's about 4 megabytes.
Let me know what's broken. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif PvK |
Re: Proportions....
Quote:
His point is that you will not always want to do that in proportions, and it may even be a bad move. |
Re: Proportions....
Quote:
PTF [ January 28, 2003, 08:45: Message edited by: PsychoTechFreak ] |
Re: Proportions....
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Proportions....
Quote:
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ah right, well that's too bad, but 1 MP is slow enough to make the point, and doubly so if they don't have a lot of supply storage, since fighters use supplies each turn. I might increase that monthly rate of use too, which will also help reduce their efficiency as warp point defenses. It would realistically take a specialized design to allow fighters to deploy without carriers for months, especially if they have biological crews. The suggested drone fighters could offer an alternative to address that particular issue. Quote:
PvK |
Re: Proportions....
What's that story about fighter supplies, something I might have missed? Fighters use supplies every turn, even without doing anything, like Drones? Or is this just a matter of your Mod?
What I have also seen is, if you put fighters into a fleet together with ships, the ship supplies will get halved with the next turn (just the attempt has to get punished). http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif |
Re: Proportions....
The new SE patch has an interesting feature that can have a direct effect on Proportions: weapon platform will be destroyed first, before troops. No more brave infantry covering missile silos with their bodies ! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
|
Re: Proportions....
I thought that a previous patch had eliminated supply sharing between fighters and ships. It used to be that you could launch fighters (which started with full supply) and fleet them with your ship; next turn, your fleet's resupplied, and you'd load up your fighters and move on along.
|
Re: Proportions....
Quote:
Fighters also now use supplies per turn as of the previous Gold patch (1.78). The default for the unmodded game is: Fighter Supply Usage Per Turn := 5 (See Settings.txt) PvK |
Re: Proportions....
You can fleet fighters with ships (which is great for escorting them) but they will track supplies independently, which is good."
Even better would be if bases worked the same way.. Phoenix-D |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:25 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.