Wish list for patch/SEV

[orev_saara]

Fair enough, Fyron. I won't even start with the whole "lightning ray" thing. Maybe I'll mod in a required gravitational technology before you can make WPs? I don't know. And I'm still thinking that atmospheric resistance should be a factor, but then there's no way to set it to be there for most planets, but not those without atmosphere. And on gas giants, how deep are the weapon platforms really? To say nothing of the grossly inadequate size of gas giants in the first place... Never mind.

While I'm running my keyboard, has it struck anybody else as strange that moons are adjacent to planets in tactical combat (Sometimes), but satellites can be four or five squares distant? Why is that, and can I mod around it?

[Arkcon]

Originally posted by orev_saara:

While I'm running my keyboard, has it struck anybody else as strange that moons are adjacent to planets in tactical combat (Sometimes), but satellites can be four or five squares distant? Why is that, and can I mod around it?

That happens when an enemy ship are already in the sector, and another enemy ship arrives. The game has some funky placement rules for this situation.

Problem is, if there are enemy space staions, satelites or moons, the same rules apply. If you're hung up on realism, these things are immobile and shouldn't be placed randomly, but the game has some placement needs above all that.

[solops]

My wishes for the next patch are far more modest. How about:
1. Option to notify the player when a planet empties its build queue.
2. Show friendly and (known) enemy ship designs when you right-click on them on the main screen.

[Gryphin]

3) Acceleration? Velocity? Vector-based kinematics? I know I'm asking for the moon and the stars here, but it'd be REALLY cool!
Yes it would be cool. On your priority list where would it fit? How about more time tweaking the AI? As a solo player I would prefer that.

4) An end to weapon platforms? Sorry, WP-lovers.
Why? For Play balance? If it is because you see them as Unrealistic or Inconsistent with the game how many other items are you prepared to remove for the same reasons?

5) Fleshed out ground combat? Planetary geography? Alright, alright, I know. I'm going crazy here, but I can dream can't I? Surely, ground combat could be a little deeper? Sigh.
I don’t want to slow down game play with ground combat. It could be made as an option but I would rather time be spent coding other aspects of the game.

6) Moddable resources. This may sound like a nightmare to some, but I'd like to be able to keep track of titanium stockpiles and crop yields. Maybe I should become an accountant?
I don’t want to slow down the game with micro economics. It could be made as an option but I would rather time be spent coding other aspects of the game.

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by orev_saara:
4) An end to weapon platforms? Sorry, WP-lovers.

I would only support this if you make it nearly impossible to glass planets from orbit. If you have to drop troops and capture all of them then removing WP's wouldn't be such a bad thing.

Geoschmo

[Suicide Junkie]

I would not support that AT ALL.

You can easily mod platforms out using the existing patch if you want. Heck, you can just disable the tech area!

[LGM]

I would like to see a supply generating component or supply generating ability that can be modded onto a component that is not tied to the number of stars in a system, but a fixed amount per turn. I would use this to Mod a Version of the Quantum reactor that generates a fixed amount of supply per turn instead of unlimited. The QR wrecks the game in my opinion, when players no longer have to worry about supply. All the weapons with high supply factors, lose that trade off factor (NSP and WMG) with QRs in the game.

I would also like to be able to use Resupply components when ships are in a fleet to replenish the fleet, instead of having to remove ships from the fleet.

I would like to be able to use an Emergency Propulsion component on my slower ships to increase my fleet's speed. For fleets, the button should be available when the slowest rating ships all have the component. Once activated, any ships faster than those would also use their component if they are now the slowest ship. e.g. I have Speed 5 with a +3 EPC and a Speed 6 with a +3 EPC. If activated, my fleet should have Speed 8 for that turn. The Speed 6 ships, use their EPC, but only get a +2 since they are tagging along with slower ships.

Along with this, it would be nice if Fleets would indicate what their speed would be if they used Emergency Propulsion components.

I would like to see Light Carriers have a higher base cost than Light Cruisers. One on One, a Carrier dueling with a Light Cruiser should not win a battle with the same weapon technology. As it is Light Carriers are about twice as good when you figure the value of the Heavy Mount and the way armor tends to go on the FBs before the weapon (usually requires two hits back to back from a Large Mount to take out a 90KT damage resistent Weapon on a Light Carrier where they are using DUCs). Phased Polarian beams can overcome this somewhat, by taking out the 90 KT weapon in one shot.

If this is not already true, and I think that it is not, I would like to see damage randomization weighted by the larger of structure space and the damage size of a component. The chances of hitting a Large Weapon should be greater than the chances of hitting a 10 KT component.

The 10% incremental tohit adjustment should be +10% BC, +20% BS, +30% DN, +40% BS. This would give Cruisers versus Battle Cruisers some trade off to consider. Likewise BS versus DN, but DNs do lose an engine, so they have some trade off already. This might give the Base Ship a bit of an advantage, but see the next item below.

I would like to see Weapon Mount efficiency reduce from 1.33, 1.5, and 1.66 to something like 1.1, 1.2, 1.3: Example, Large mounts take 1.5 times Space, but do 1.65 times the damage instead of 2.0 times. Likewise, Heavy mounts would be 2.0 space/2.4 damage and Heavy mounts 3.0 space, 3.9 times the damage. This change would make smaller weapons more viable.

Make the Relious trait more costly in points: 2000 or 2500. Make the Talisman cost something like 3000 or 6000 organics to make them have some special cost factor. (Takes a lot of priests, sacrifices, or prayer energy to keep them working). Perhaps a Talisman should have a chance of being damaged whenevever another component is damaged (collateral damage). Make the size bitter, would make them restricted to bigger ships, a chance I would not want to see. Their damage rating should be 5 KT. They may be 40 KT of space, but one hit should desecrate their holiness.

Fighter stacks should fire once per fighter, not pooled shots. This would make emissive armor very effective against fighters.

All hits should have a 5% chance of skipping armor. Each armor component taken out, should increase the chance of bypassing armor. Chance to bypass armor should be 5% + (95% * KT Armor Destroyed) / # KT Armor on ship design). This would make larger hulls increasingly vulnerable as their armor is damaged. The KTs above, are space KTs, not damage KTs.

I would like to see ship facings armor thickness in SEIV. 1 m think armor on a Base Ships would be much more costly than 1m of armor on a Frigate, but both would provide equal protection, at least initially. Smaller ship armor should degregate more quickly as they have less surface area than large ships. Armor would be allocated to a particular facing: Front, Flank, and Rear. Do not differentiate Left from Right as by spinning a ship could spread the damage out equally to both sides anyway. Lets assume there is no tumpling motion as that would make engine efficiency very poor as you would have to fire them at set times in the rotation.

Do not implement weapon facing as most would be turreted and spinning the ship would allow you to cover all of space with a turret anyway. Ship shape would really have to be considered if you did something with this anyway: A Cylinder has blind spots straight in front and in back. A cone has no frontal blind splot, but has an enlarged one in the rear. Weapons mounted away from the hull on rods would have smaller blind spots, but would be oddly shaped and would have structural problems.

For tactical combat, use Newton's Physics, instead of Aristole's for tactical combat. Give ships a direction of movement, and engines must be used to alter that direction or the magnitude. You could make tactical combat vector based instead of regulated by squares. Engines are used to alter the movement vector.

Do computer controled tactical in strategic mode combat games in simultaneous and incrementally and allow ships to fire at any point in the increments. This will allow range advantage to actually be exercised.