AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent

[JLS]

Desdinova.

I sent you an EMAIL beta Copy of an alternative for the Repair Base Station.

What do you think?

John.

[ April 10, 2003, 16:14: Message edited by: JLS ]

[Desdinova]

just downloaded. will look at them. we have several people on vacation this week so work is busy. will see what i can do b4 and after work though.

[Desdinova]

i am using the 2.02 rules, not the ones you just sent me, on this. there are no crystalline restructuring plants or system mtc facilities
total starbase cost: m: 59020 o: 16920 r: 9450

starbase mtc is 75% mtc bonus
repair bays with mtc bonus: m: -2407 o: -690 r: -385
repair bays with no bonus: m: 3611 0: 1035 r: 578

starbase mtc is 50% mtc bonus
repair bays with mtc bonus: m: 7625 o: 2185 r: 1220
repair bays with no bonus: m: 14kt o: 3911 r: 2184

this was done in one of my games, however it was one i which i was playing with huge fleets so i had increased mtc bonus for race to 30% so i could afford to maintain larger fleets. (edit: which is the same as having crystalline restructuring plant lvl 6 anyway)

just reducing the mtc bonus to 50% is enough to keep the cost from going negative.
i realize that part of the reason for going back to the original repair bays was to lower cost, thus making it faster to create starbases on the frontier, plus i think you also increased the component repaired amts when went back to original so wouldnt need 3 repair bays. but i still prefer having the bonus added to the component myself.

edit. im wrong you did not increase the # of components repaired so i would still be putting 3 repair bays on starbase. but you did increase the mtc bonus of the starbase to 77%. hmmm, let me try from scratch with the mod you did.

[ April 10, 2003, 20:09: Message edited by: desdinova ]

[JLS]

Actually, we are resolving the way of increased Frontier Base construction time with the need to keep the net maintenance relatively low.
~
The files I sent you should not allow for stacking of the Base Repair Bay MTC any longer and should be more in line with NET Maintenance.

The combined Maintenance reduction on a Base Battle Station with both a Ship yard and a Repair Station Component makes sense, since the two will Complement each other with the joint operations of a Large Maintenance Base.

I also staggered structure kt (armor effect) upward thru the levels on all Construction Components; to represent the on-going repair in battle.

I added Minus Offence and Defense to all Base Ship Yards and Repair Base Station as to limit there exploitation. What would you suggest the figures be, this is an example.

What are your thoughts on all this?

[ April 10, 2003, 22:16: Message edited by: JLS ]

[JLS]

Large Maintenance Base Results

With no other Modifiers all Resources are a positive. I did not test with MTC Planet Facilities, but this looks good so far.

Basic BSY on a Space Station Hull, with:

Level 1 SY = m:960 o:97 r:75
Level 1 Repair Bay = 1280.90.50
~
*Large Maintenance Base on a Battle Station Hull, with:

Level 1 SY and Level 1 Repair Bay = 1188.81.67
Level 3 SY and Level 3 Repair Bay = 1694.101.108
Level 5 SY and Level 3 Repair Bay = 1710.97.127

*Note: There is still 550kt of room on the Large Maintenance Base, to fill with Defenses etc. So the Maintenance will go up on this design if a Player wants to add some extras.

[Krsqk]

"I also staggered structure kt (armor effect) upward thru the levels on all Construction Components; to represent the on-going repair in battle."

You probably already realize this, but that also makes it more likely to be hit in combat (due to its higher hitpoints). Depending on where it falls in comparison to other components, it might not alter the combat survival chances of this component.

[PsychoTechFreak]

Originally posted by Krsqk:

You probably already realize this, but that also makes it more likely to be hit in combat (due to its higher hitpoints). Depending on where it falls in comparison to other components, it might not alter the combat survival chances of this component.

That's true. The other end of the extreme shows it, basic life support components in proportions have 1kT structure and they almost never get a hit (cheap and hard to be hit). But I have seen it is 10kT in AIC now, good.

[JLS]

Desdinova and I are attempting alternate ways to redesign Base Yards and Repair stations. Desdinova is coming up with some real good and innovated ideas

Originally posted by Krsqk:
“but that also makes it more likely to be hit in combat (due to its higher hitpoints). Depending on where it falls in comparison to other components, it might not alter the combat survival chances of this component.”

Agreed, I would think that the Construction Components for bases should stand alone; this will afford them a little more protection.
The additions of many extra weapons or to many defenses will and should slow the construction time down and raise the Bases overall maintenance cost.
~~

Krsqk,
Do you think there may be a way we could design a DAMAGE CONTROL COMPONANT, that would be a cross between or incorporating both a low value Shield Modifier and Ablative armor, at a reasonable tonnage kt? That would be a optional but a critical ship install and this component would be gained thru Repair Tech?

What would you say?

[ April 11, 2003, 14:35: Message edited by: JLS ]

[JLS]

Originally posted by PsychoTechFreak:

But I have seen it is 10kT in AIC now, good

More thought has to be done here, thou, and we should go over all Component structures for the next AIC Update.

PTF, what are your thoughts about us miniaturizing the hardened life support level to 5kt in both tonnage and structure, or just put it to 9kt in structure?
While leaving the structure of basic LS at 11, and LS at 10 as is, for AIC v2.03.

[ April 11, 2003, 14:38: Message edited by: JLS ]

[Desdinova]

regarding the increased size making it more likely to be hit. i have noticed that with the armored structure components in the mod that the armored structures tend to get hit more often once armor has been breached since they tend to be 100+kt in structure while only taking up 10 kt in space. the exception is with the shipyards, as they tend to be the largest components on bases and ships. plus with the armored structures ability to shrug off x amount of damage (based on level) they have become an integral part of all my ship and base designs. they are well worth the minerals necessary to build them in my opinion. edit: which makes sense as the ships/bases structure should take most of the damage before components do. but once that structure is damaged/destroyed then it doesnt take long for the rest to be destroyed.

[ April 11, 2003, 19:05: Message edited by: desdinova ]