STM "Final v1.7.5" Discussion

[Fyron]

The description matters not for boarding parties and such, it is just the ability numbers that matter. However, the ratio between space marines and boarding points should either be constant, or the descriptions should have extra info stating why that ratio is different. It is always a good idea to place something in the description like (provides [Ability 1 Val] boarding attack/defense points), which ever is appropriate, so that you can get the raw-numbers in game.

An example:

Name := Security Station II
Ability 1 Descr := Provides equipment and accommodations for 90 security personnel (30 boarding defense).
Ability 1 Val 1 := 30

Name := Security Station III
Ability 1 Descr := Provides equipment and accommodations for 60 heavily armed security personnel (40 boarding defense).
Ability 1 Val 1 := 40

Name := Security Station V
Ability 1 Descr := Provides equipment and accommodations for 100 elite security personnel (60 boarding defense).
Ability 1 Val 1 := 60

As you can see, the ratio decreases with increasing technology, but it is explained due to how heavily armed the security forces are. And, the raw number for the ability value is provided, so you do not have to look up the value in the data files. Decreasing ratios between boarding (offense/defense) and number of personnel are fine, as long as the raw number is provided as well. The other option (best for not having some flavorful changes to armament, training, etc.) is to keep the ratio constant. Either option works fine. But, the option of a decreasing ratio with no explanation and no display of the raw numbers is not a good option.

[DavidG]

Originally posted by Atrocities:

quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidG:
Your not planning on changing the current Version so it works on both Gold and 1.49 are you? When I edited the data files to make it work on 1.49 I had to change a lot of stuff for the worse because 1.49 did not support various features. ie. The bussard ram Jet thingy is now an 'only one per ship' because 1.49 did not support 2 or 3 per ship. Also many of the damage types had to be changed. etc etc. I forget everything I changed now.

I got it working in ver 1.49 but it is far better in Gold.

I had considered it, but now, hell no. They will just have to buy GOLD. [/QB]

---

Or settle for playing Version 1.30 which is what I based the se 1.49 Version on. I played it to about turn 20 and everything seemed to work ok. AI's seemed to be expanding normal.
They would have to download the Gold Version and then the files I sent you would be copied and overwrite the gold mode files. They would also have to delete the races you've added since ver 1.30 like the Orions.
I could also zip the whole ver 1.30 SE1.49 files and upload them somewhere if there is much interest in them.

[Aiken]

Irrefragable answer. And unfortunately STM neither keeps constant multipliers nor provides additional boarding points description. That hurts when playing with ship capture tactics. So looking forward for Atrocities' opinion.

[Fyron]

Irrefragable

I'm sorry, but I am confused by this word. What did you mean?

My post was indirectly stating that Atrocities needs to change the current system used in STM.

[mac5732]

Just started playing the mod, up to 1.5.0, found the following minor problems (if they are)

1. the 3rd line under race description is unable to be read, doesn't scroll down

2. giving ship move order by cliking on wormhole button doesn't work, you have to use the arrow button lst then clik on the wormhole button

3. In constructin a Space station, won't let put engine on it. However, when you clik on the engine it does show it is available to be put on a base. so the question is, Is the space stations allowed to have at least l engine or not?

Note this was in the 150 Version, I have just upgraded to 151 and the patch fix and have started a new game. So I don't know if these problems are still there, but thought I would let you know, if still there I will let you know

just some ideas Mac

[TNZ]

Irrefragable

Irrefragable- not to be refuted; undeniable

That is what my 3.5 inches thick Random House Dictionary of The English Language says.

[tesco samoa]

mac that is funny Version 150

it is almost true

[Fyron]

Originally posted by TNZ:
Irrefragable

Irrefragable- not to be refuted; undeniable

That is what my 3.5 inches thick Random House Dictionary of The English Language says.

Sounds like a bad translation to me, not a real English word... oh well.

[Aiken]

Oh, sorry guys. Thats my bugged English, I meant "exhaustive".

*/me is erasing that stupid 127 MB English-Russian-English dictionary*

[ February 07, 2004, 04:33: Message edited by: aiken ]

[tesco samoa]

no worries aiken