Updated the FAQ

[Slick]

Great research, douglas. I'm sure that took some time to test.

[Fyron]

I was talking about the ship ID number stuff, to make it clear...

Slick:
You can delete posts now. Just hit the "Delete this post" button when editing the post you wish to delete.

[douglas]

Same sector, and that option was disabled. Also, I got a log message each time enemy presence prevented the operation specifically stating that it couldn't be done because an enemy was there - except for the create storm trial, where it told me I didn't have enough supplies, even though the ship had 6 engines and a quantum reactor. Moving one sector away to an unoccupied spot fixed that problem, so I'm quite certain that error message was giving me the wrong text.

[Fyron]

In the interests of keeping the hyperlink version of the FAQ up to date, I plan to write a little program to auto-insert all of the necessary HTML formatting. Would you be interested in this for the official post on Shrapnel Slick?

[Slick]

possibly if it isn't too much extra work. as of now I have many new sections and am in the process of filling out some of the areas that are sparse. I am also in the middle of cutting/pasting from numerous threads on the forum (with credit to the authors).

the part that may make an auto formatter fail is that I am also putting in many cross references. i.e. ".... see also section xx.xx.xx". which would be great for links, but probably require manual editing. if i have to manually edit all of those, it just won't be worth it.

[Fyron]

I am sure I can figure out something. New line requirements are handy.

[Caduceus]

I may not be a great player, but I am a good spell-checker and grammar-checker. If you need a second set of eyes on this sucker let me know.

[Slick]

Thanks for the offer. I usually correct spelling. **Most of the time I let those "armour" and "colour" spellings stand as is, even though the game itself spells "armor" and this _is_ an American game** [insert evil laugh]. All kidding aside, as far as grammar goes, I usually only fix it when it is really bad or causes the entry to be wrong/unclear. Minor infractions give the FAQ its flavor of community contribution. Flavor? Flavour?
I always correct any spelling/grammar that might embarrass the author since that's never the intent of including a quote.

[Slick]

See new partially completed update posted.

I will be going through an intense workload period soon so I wanted to at least upload the work that has been done so far. The previous version was ~93 pages and this version is ~145 pages so that just goes to show you how much has been added. I truly apologize for the unfinished sections and I promise to finish them as time permits in a couple of months. My notes to myself are listed with underlines: ___________________________ so please disregard them. Also, none of the links have been fixed yet, formatting is marginal for some of the tables, and I still have a ton of input from various people that I haven't got a chance to add yet. Here's a partial update for now. Slick

[Parasite]

At times I use troops, both defensively and offensively. I have read in the SEIV FAQ some things.

7.2.14 Regarding ground combat troops in a transport: first in = first out, and first out = front line.
and
7.2.26 It's a well known strategy, but I'll mention it nevertheless: If you want to achieve maximum efficiency in ground combat, it's worth to design 3 types of troops: Defender, Offender and Leader. Defender's design include small shields (or armor) only. Offenders are armed with you favorite weapon (ground cannons or small shield depleters) and nothing else. Leader is equipped with shields plus small combat sensor and small ECM components. Produce them in 3:6:1 proportions (rough numbers). Now, then filling your troop transport, place Defenders first, then Offenders and Last Leaders. Being dropped to a planet, Defender will play a meat shield role, Offenders will stay behind Defenders unharmed and wipe out militia (or hostile troops) and Leaders will provide attack and defense bonus to the whole stack of troops. (Aiken)

I have adopted this wholeheartedly, and have even expanded it somewhat to production of troops on endangered planets, tending to produce mostly shielded first, then fighters, then a limited number of leaders. I have never really tested it out though. I have not gotten to the point of switching between a player and an AI in games yet.

In a few recent games I have found cause to doubt it is true. Specificly in an old game I had troops stored on a planet I was guarding. An enemy attacked and of the enemy troops, only the shielded troops survived. My opponent was an experienced player and believes he loaded the troops correctly as suggested above.

In an ongoing game, I have invaded several planets. I always load the transport and interspace the leaders in the middle of the troops, being sure to at least put one first and one last. It then would not matter if FIFO or FILO were used on exit. In at least two of these battles, the 3 small leader troops I had were destroyed, while only some of the gun toting ones were killed. The leaders were loaded first, middle, and last, yet were all killed. They were fairly weak leaders as I don't have shields yet to use with them. The opposition was also very strong having troops with increased ground combat skills and high population planets. To me, this tends to prove that the troops are not landed in FIFO (or FILO) mode and that something else is going on.

Could a patch have changed this? I have read of the Weapon Platform tests and the difficulty of proving things one way or the other. Could some type of random damage be happening to troops as well? Would this call into question ECM/ECCM effects on unit stacks?

This would change small troop leader designs to have cockpit, ECM, and two shields; and cockpit plus ECCM with shields for maximum protection and surviveability. Shielded troops would be less usefull, while standard troops would stay the same or have protection given to each trooper.