New Patch Info Thread

dmm · #1 February 20th, 2001, 09:36 PM

quote:
Originally posted by God Emperor:
Hmmm, have to agree with Samurai on 17. I liked to be able to edit prototypes. ... Am interested in any feedback on this issue.
Regards,
God Emperor

GE,
The reason for this fix is that construction queue rules have been changed. In the upcoming Version, if you replace the top queue item, then you lose all construction credit for it. So the above change is just closing a loophole in the new rule.

That's kind of a pain if all you're doing is adding a sensor. The intent, though, is to prevent people from constructing some big-ticket item for a bunch of turns and then suddenly switching it to a totally dissimilar big-ticket item (which maybe they just researched). So, in the upcoming Version, you won't be able to construct for 5 turns on your latest ship, and then edit it just before completion to contain armor, engines, and weapons that were unknown when construction started. You'll have to choose between starting construction from scratch, or finishing the old Version and then upgrading.

I must admit, I like to exploit the current system. But I think the new rule is more realistic. (Think about it: with the current system, you can be constructing a warship and replace it with a computer complex or an organics facility, with no construction penalty. HUH, WHAT?? Really, it had to be fixed.)

dmm · #2 February 20th, 2001, 10:03 PM

quote:
Originally posted by raynor:
Could you perhaps explain yourself a little better?

In the threads discussing colonization of planetary types, people were complaining that it was unrealistic to think that rock dwellers could ever colonize ice or gas, that gas dwellers could ever colonize rock or ice, or that ice dwellers could ever colonize rock or gas. But the argument was not empire-based, it was species-based. So if an empire of rock dwellers captures a gas planet full of gas dwellers from another empire, there is no logical reason why those gas dwellers can't be used to colonize other gas planets (provided the empire has the Gas Colonization tech).

My point is this:
An option implementing the species-based restriction was asked for but what is (apparently) being given instead is an empire-based restriction. Many people were hoping for the former. The latter is not as useful and is totally arbitrary -- there's no logical basis for it.

The same arguments can be made regarding the new option to restrict colonization to homeworld atmospheres.

If the idea was simply to reduce the number of colonies to manage, then you've already pointed out the obvious (and logically consistent) solution -- reduce the average number of planets per system. Or just play in an ancient galaxy.

raynor · #3 February 20th, 2001, 10:07 PM

Thanks!

I completely forgot about conquering a species whose home planet type is different from yours.

Nitram Draw · #4 February 20th, 2001, 11:25 PM

I love the idea of only being able to colonize one type of planet.
This could go a long way toward creating some valuable systems.

Talenn · #5 February 20th, 2001, 11:53 PM

On the subject of changing prototypes etc...

I, for one, would like to see some sort of added cost for the first ship in a class. Maybe a 'design fee' or 'prototype penalty' or somesuch. Not a huge cost, but something to encourage (and reward) a bit of preplanning and forethought. It would also help reduce some tedium as it wouldnt always be the optimum to redesign all of your ship as soon as you get one new component the way it is now.

It might make some financial sense to keep a class in production until a few changes are in order instead of for each new gadget. In fact, the cost wouldnt even have to be a resources cost (although that is certainly not a bad option) but perhaps a time cost...ie prototypes take 50% more time to construct or somesuch.

As far as a resource cost? Maybe 15-20%? I'm not sure if that would be enough to encourage some standardization or not. Perhapss a combo of the two?

Anyways, bottom line is that IMO, it should not always be in a player's best interest to constantly redesign their ships. It should go in cycles and not incessantly. This would definately reduce micromanagement and would prolly be adding some 'realism' to game as the same time.

Anyone else?

Thanx,
Talenn

SunDevil · #6 February 21st, 2001, 12:04 AM

Talenn,

You would then have to make the ai not upgrade and update their design every chance that they get. As it stands right now, the ai tries every turn to update and retrofit their ships.

But I like your idea.

Sinapus · #7 February 21st, 2001, 12:14 AM

quote:
Originally posted by SunDevil:
Talenn,

You would then have to make the ai not upgrade and update their design every chance that they get. As it stands right now, the ai tries every turn to update and retrofit their ships.

But I like your idea.

Actually, one of the things I find irksome is that the AI doesn't jettison and rebuild new weapon platforms and satellites, so if you hit their earlier systems, all they have are a bunch of obsolete platforms and satellites.

Well, maybe they can keep the satellites, since they can still do a little damage, but I think that the AI should jettison the old WPs every so often and build new ones if there are no enemy units detected in that system or maybe one system away. Since those ones with large-mount DUC I's aren't as nasty as the High-Energy Discharge or other heavy weapons. Especially if you use the mod that increases range on mounts used for weapon platforms.

------------------
--
"What do -you- want?" "I'd like to live -just- long enough to be there when they cut off your head and stick it on a pike as a warning to the next ten generations that some favors come with too high a price. I would look up into your lifeless eyes and wave like this..." *waggle* "...can you and your associates arrange that for me, Mr. Morden?"

[This message has been edited by Sinapus (edited 20 February 2001).]