Massivley interconnected systems.

[geoschmo]

I have always wanted to know how to get a map with a lot of warp points in it. The map editor is just too clunky to try to do it by hand. I finally hit on the solution.

quote:

---

From the Quadrant Types.txt file
Max Warp Points per Sys := 5
Min Angle Between WP := 60

---

I had tried raising the max warp points per system before, but it never seemed to have an effect. I realized Last night that the controlling factor is the min anlge between warp points.

Lowering this will allow warp points to be closer together, and thus allow more per system. With the anlge at 60 technically the most you can get is 6, in reality it's rare to get five, I've never seen one with 6. 4 is the highest number commonly found in larger quadrants.

By lowering the angle to 20 and raising the max warp points to 10, I was able to get many systems with 7, 8 and even nine warp points per system on randomly generated maps.

It does make for a bit of clutter in the galaxy map. I found that I could turn the warp lines off though and not suffer any confusion. With 7 or 8 warp points per system, chances were quite good that every system was connected to every one of it's neighboring systems anyway, so warp lines were really not neccesary.

For what it's worth to you.

Geoschmo

[rdouglass]

Good bit of info...thanks! Will help in a little project I'm working on....

[Gryphin]

Actualy that is interesting. It should change the nature of the game a little.
My understanding is the AI automaticaly claims linked systems. If so, I suspect this will generate more confict.
It will also aid in expansion
It should increase mobility including shortcuts around back holes and the like.
The mobilty will also help with resuply and interior lines of defence. I doubt the AI will be able to effectively take advantage of this aspect. A human can look at the map and calc the stratiegic placement of resupply and stationing of ships. I have not seen this in the AI.

[geoschmo]

More conflict. Yes, I did not think about that, but I believe you are right.

As far as placement of ships, the AI will direct ships to defend claimed systems based on the level of enemy presence there. This actually should aid them in that as it will allow there forces a more direct route to defend those systems, and thus should be able to bring a defensive force to bear more rapidly and in greater concentration. Or at least it would work that way on paper. Haven't tested it yet.

I started long ago removing or reducing the number of black hole systems from my maps when I play the AI, so for me that wasn't much of a factor. I know that if no alternate route exsists, the AI will send an endless stream of colony ships into a damaging warp point. But does the AI always chose the most direct route even if a damaging warp point is on that route and a slightly longer route exsists with no damaging warp point? I don't know.

This may tell us though. If nothing else, with more routes, chances are better of finding one that is shorter and has no damaging warp point, so it should help the AI some, even if it doesn't help as much as it helps the human players.

Geoschmo

[Quikngruvn]

Heh. More conflict indeed. Defending your territory would be tougher, with many more points of entry into your empire to defend and fewer (or nonexistent) bottlenecks....

Faster expansion for sure... brings new meaning to the phrase "the interconnectedness of all things" (with apologies to Douglas Adams).

Quikngruvn

[Gryphin]

Another thought:
With more warp points to defend, will the AI use more Resources building mines or sattelites to defend them?

Destructive Warp Points: I have seen these,(and the black holes on the other side) with large quantitys of 1/2 dead ships of various types. I have not seen any since I learned how to implement "Avoid System", < wry grin >. In the game I'm playing now, there is a mine layer dead in space in a destructive warp point. What I don't know is: Was it
1) Just passing through or
2) Did it plan to lay mines at that warp point
Any thoughts on that?

[ 23 January 2002: Message edited by: Gryphin ]