AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent

[QBrigid]

Originally posted by PsychoTechFreak:
[QB]

quote:

---

100 mines in a sector is the default with AIC as it is in se4, a larger setting is possible.
However the AI has a daunting task constructing and placing 100 mines per field, can you imagine the AI needing to double that effort [[Wink]]

Yes the Human Player can load Mine Sweeper Components in total on Medium Transports, do you recommend this be restricted?

No restrictions to the number of components, IMO. If you think a component is overpowered, just change it to a bigger size or more expensive.
Devnull has got 500 mines per sector; it is always a matter of balancing minesweeping ability and size of minefields. I do not use it often, it is just a kind of Last resort sometimes in the early game.

---

I don't know PTF. It seems like a whole lot of work building several minefeilds up to 500 to match the other players.
At 100 mines and at Space Empires 4 minesweeping ability of FIVE, will give the same result. Without all that work and micromanagement.

JLS, I would keep minefilds at the traditional 100 setting (IMHO)

I also like the AIC se4 traditional mines because they work against Human Players like Space Empires and they are cheep to buy in AIC and the mines work against all the enemy components on the ship not just a few or one. Against the AI, minefields will work early and buy enough time to prepare defenses, just like when we play against other human players

But if I start next to violent AIC ai race or a good AIC human player I know mines is only a delay and against some human players, se4 mines is a short delay at best

If you think a component is overpowered, just change it to a bigger size or more expensive.

PTF, will bigger organic or any se4 armor protect you from armor skiping weapons?

If Temporal or Cryslonite with early armor skiping weapons and they are full of unrestricted armor turn on you we are dead. Sure shields will help me but they will have shields and a whole lot of armor = they shoot I die - I shoot I bounce off all the armor they can fit and at 10kt that would be an awful lot

[ January 24, 2004, 15:26: Message edited by: QBrigid ]

[QBrigid]

Originally posted by JLS:
Thank you for the presented issues, the best way to handle Restrictions would be a one by one basis.

Ram Ship Cobalt Warheads are not restricted in AIC and you also have the ability that is restricted in se4 lifted so in AIC you may load them in total on Transports, for a neat Horatio Nelson fire ship.

Organic Armour is at 5 max, this was all discussed many months ago about restricting armor. Moreover, I am also partial to lifting the armor restriction as well. However, other players were adament about this issue as it applies to haveing restrictions on armor.

The AI is not overly effected even by its current designs by any changes with armor restrictions; so sure we have total freedom here.
However, this may yield advantages to other race types.
Many felt that the Organics have the armor avantage at 5, plus combine this with other PvK v4.11 armors. Then the advantage is followed by the Crysteline...

The removal of the Armor restrictions will only play into the Temporals and Cryseline favor; races with early armor skiping weapons and further distence Psychic and other race advantages

In jest "I have tons of armor on my ships and your investment is worthless to my weapons"
However their claims may be just nitpicking?

Remote Mining should be modest in nature.
However, what would you recommend for possible per turn ship/base gross robo-minning net numbers with a 100% planet value?

100 minefeilds = less work in a less important se4 area.

Minesweepers on transport = I agree with PTF we should restrict this.

The removal of armor = (Enhencements that se4 v1.84 gold upgrade offers) KEEP THEM (it offers balance potential)

Cobalt Warheads = GLV, I like the way AIC has this with no restrictions and I like that you can put them on transports.

Remote mining totals = What ever, as long as it is balanced
Do you want to see a few hundred or a few thousand added to the net minning totals?

[ January 24, 2004, 15:29: Message edited by: QBrigid ]

[QBrigid]

I would like to see AIC reduceing the massive Enterprise hull plating to only one per ship. This is more realistic and give the organic race 6 armors for more of an edge as they should get.


PS: My claims are not just nitpicking

[ January 24, 2004, 15:17: Message edited by: QBrigid ]

[QBrigid]

Originally posted by JLS:

You have an interesting concept here. The main problem as it is now, is that many concepts may not work with the AI.

For example Anti-Engine Mines.

The AI would be crippled not destroyed and stuck at that location (no more engines), yet costing large amounts of support resources and the AI is none the wiser

Further example: In se4 the AI calls its designs to be built by :
Planet Per Item (PPI) and Must Have At Least… Please see reference.

In this example the AI has 5 Dreadnoughts even worse 2 Colony ships as well; disabled by anti-engine mines and unable to fulfill it missions. However the AI sees this and sure it wants them repaired, but it can not get it to return to a Repair Yard. However when the AI Construction File looks at the [Must Have At Least numbers] it has the 5 Dreadnoughts and 2 Colony ships and will not fulfill any Must Have At Least orders because the ships exist.

Please remember, this AI is paying resources for the 5 Dreadnoughts and in stock se4 where only the Best and/or Largest ships is built; this may halt a majority of that Ship Types Construction.
It will certainly slow or even Halt Colony Ship Production…

The AI Ship with disabled engines is a sad sight to see
A designer must consider the PPI also when designing there AI race , however, not to the point where it will break the bank in the late mid to end game
(A planet may have many slots in se4, however many also only have one slot for that AI Minning Facility to support those large Capital Ships)


= = = = = = = = =
Reference

se4 Default_AI_Construction_Vehicles

Entry X Must Have At Least:
Must have this many of this type in existance, or being built.
If not, then build more.
This comes before Planet Per Item.

AI State := Infrastructure
Num Queue Entries := 39
Entry 1 Type := Defense Base
Entry 1 Planet Per Item := 100
Entry 1 Must Have At Least := 0
Entry 2 Type := Attack Ship
Entry 2 Planet Per Item := 20
Entry 2 Must Have At Least := 2
Entry 3 Type := Colonizer
Entry 3 Planet Per Item := 80
Entry 3 Must Have At Least := 1

JLS is this why you removed Engine Damage intel from the intel and AIC Psychic Intel projects only for the AI Players and not Human Players.

How about other damage that effects AI ship production?

[ January 24, 2004, 15:22: Message edited by: QBrigid ]

[JLS]

Originally posted by QBrigid:

JLS is this why you removed Engine Damage intel from the intel and AIC Psychic Intel projects only for the AI Players and not Human Players.

Yes. This is no biggie that the an AI have or not have Ship Engine damage Intel, I just felt it was best for the AIC - AI Players (ONLY) not to ping each other.

- - -

How about other damage that effects AI ship production?

Sure there is a lot of in-game towards AI ship productions.

The obvious is Combat and a lucky Intel Planet Space Yard or BSY hit.

But a few discrete and possibly unnoticed situations would be for example.

Aggressive warp points that may disable the AI and not destroy the Ships.
Same applies to a Black Hole center and/or other system ship damaging anomalies.
(I would recomend the ship be totally destroyed or lightly damage) In this way the AI Ship may return for repair or be replaced when it is destroyed

Systems with a Gravitational pull of (1) ONE; effects any AI ship that is in the pull, when it is out of fuel it moves one away and then the pull brings it back one; for ever stuck in this cycle.

AI ships with a lot of fuel (or unlimited supply) when also in a gravitational pull as above, however with a pull of greater then half its normal movement may also be in the anomaly for a very long time before it escapes.(minor in nature)


When the AI Ship is in play but disabled and unable to repair, the AI Vehical Construction for its item MHAL replacement value; will be reduced in total overall productivity possibly even halted.

[ January 25, 2004, 18:50: Message edited by: JLS ]

[JLS]

Originally posted by QBrigid:
Remote mining totals = What ever, as long as it is balanced
Do you want to see a few hundred or a few thousand added to the net minning totals?

I definitely want an increase due to the value it will have with the FQM maps.

However, first it is important that we decide: Do we want Remote Mining for a Supplement or a Primary source of resources?

What effect do we want remote mining to have with the non-FQM maps?

[ January 25, 2004, 19:06: Message edited by: JLS ]

[Paul1980au]

Keep it as a supplement but increase the values a bit to make it more important overall. Maps with resource rich areas in the centre of the game map makes a quick rush and constant fights over such areas to dominate the game.
Like to see MM expand the resource aspect of the game dunno how yet ?
viagra deposits to speed up planetary population growth they could be mined from black holes perhaps ?

[Grand Lord Vito]

Originally posted by Paul1980au:
Keep it as a supplement but increase the values a bit to make it more important overall. Maps with resource rich areas in the centre of the game map makes a quick rush and constant fights over such areas to dominate the game.
Like to see MM expand the resource aspect of the game dunno how yet ?
viagra deposits to speed up planetary population growth they could be mined from black holes perhaps ?

I agree with Paul keep robo-mines as a supplement.

[Grand Lord Vito]

Originally posted by PsychoTechFreak:
Remote mining is good where it is IMO and AIC is designed for a more manageable ship count, raising the mining abilities will upset this and dig into LAN games. You don't play finite resources, do you?

PTF you know that is mostly what I play

If there are infinate ways to make resources, how FINITE will our finite games be

[JLS]

Originally posted by QBrigid:

If Temporal or Cryslonite with early armor skiping weapons and they are full of unrestricted armor turn on you we are dead. Sure shields will help me but they will have shields and a whole lot of armor = they shoot I die - I shoot I bounce off all the armor they can fit and at 10kt that would be an awful lot

You have a strong case QB, what do others think?

[ January 26, 2004, 21:42: Message edited by: JLS ]