.com.unity Forums
  The Official e-Store of Shrapnel Games

This Month's Specials

Raging Tiger- Save $9.00
winSPMBT: Main Battle Tank- Save $6.00

   







Go Back   .com.unity Forums > Shrapnel Community > Space Empires: IV & V

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old October 16th, 2001, 06:12 AM

CaptSpoogy CaptSpoogy is offline
BANNED USER
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 302
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
CaptSpoogy is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Toning down the resources requirements.

I like changing the requirements for some components to include more organics and radioactives to make them worthwhile and keeping a cap on those darn mineral expenses!

------------------
"Reality is a nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there."
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old October 16th, 2001, 06:52 PM

Repo Man Repo Man is offline
Corporal
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: New York
Posts: 54
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Repo Man is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Toning down the resources requirements.

>>Mothballed ships are hardcoded for no maintenance.

Figured as much. Oh well.

>>Sure, you store minerals, but at a hefty >>price: scrapping is not typically >>efficient, and even with the scrapper >>facilities, you're losing a big chuck of >>the investment.

True, but if you have maxed out on mineral storage anyway, all the minerals would be lost. Even 20% is better than nothing.

__________________
~~Repo Man at your service~~
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old October 16th, 2001, 06:59 PM

Repo Man Repo Man is offline
Corporal
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: New York
Posts: 54
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Repo Man is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Toning down the resources requirements.

I've toyed with changing mineral requirements now and then.

Regarding the 25% maint. cost, I find thats a little high, since the cost is per turn, and each turn is 1/10 of a year. That translates to 250% of original cost per year. We are not simply talking currency, but new minerals.

I haven't playtested this at all, but since I like the concept of finite minerals, I've increased dramaticly the amount of minerals per planet. A high end of 80,000,000 tons works for non homeworlds. Homeworlds over 40 million tons coupled seem to cause the game to crash.

I don't know what good numbers are, but I guess it depends on the kind of game you are looking for, knowing that your raw materials will eventually will run out kind of works for me.
__________________
~~Repo Man at your service~~
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old October 16th, 2001, 07:54 PM
Suicide Junkie's Avatar
Suicide Junkie Suicide Junkie is offline
Shrapnel Fanatic
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,451
Thanks: 1
Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Suicide Junkie is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Toning down the resources requirements.

quote:
True, but if you have maxed out on mineral storage anyway, all the minerals would be lost. Even 20% is better than nothing.
I say, If you're losing resources to storage overflow, you're not building enough .
Keep building more ships, and once your budget is down to only slight resource overflows, send all your next newly built ships into mothballs.
Don't scrap the ships, but keep them reasonably up-to-date, and unmothball them for wartime.
It saves you time and money when you've got to replace war losses. When you unmothball, ships, you spend 25% of the normal build cost (125% in total, but 25% when you need the ship), plus you can "rush build" as many new ships as you want in one turn.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2024, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.