AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent

[Yimboli]

Originally posted by QBrigid:
I always make Ring Worlds. With this FQM game I am playing now, I will make first Shpere.

Yimboli how what does a Sphereworld give you?

I guess nothing that a ring world doesn't... I just like having the biggest, baddest, and best things out there

[JLS]

Originally posted by Yimboli:
I just like having the biggest, baddest, and best things out there

You got that right

[madkillercat]

Originally posted by JLS:

quote:

---

Originally posted by madkillercat:
[qb] were the Scout, Escort, and Frigate hulls developed after the other hulls were finalized?

Excellent question

AIC *may* have taken some liberties and this also lends too some game play options and in game decision making as to the usage of some AIC Hulls:

- - -
Madkillercat, perhaps the 550kt Cruiser can use a little something else - this design is often neglected and she usually gets the pass with the Battle Cruiser next on deck - Perhaps we could better her defensive maneuverability’s. What do ya think?

---

Overall I find the automobile analogy reasoning contrived, and the liberties made mostly in order to counter the...stupid AI in SE4.

I can agree with your usage of those hull classes, yet I don't view ship design that way for the most part. For example:

Scouts could be used that way, however I find putting sick bays in ALL warships to be sufficient. The low cost and small size of the sick bay being sufficient to justify its use. So all warships double as low level medical ships.

I prefer designing with a completely flexible vehicle system in mind. That means I don't consider Carrier, Transport, Base, Satellite, Mine, Fighter, or Drone hulls to be anything but ways to force the AI to do certains things.

Customized designs is my joy in SE, and I rarely use transport or carrier hulls. (e.g. in AIC I use a BC w/ less engines, etc vs a MT.) The fine balance of AIC has allowed me to do this w/o as much cost as it would in most mods. However, this "hull type" contrivance for the AI is still there. I dislike designing with "pre-determined" efficiencies and specificity in hulls as was apparently done with those (3) hulls. (e.g. FF Def+=40 is due to assumed use of 5/5 engines. Using 4/5 should not give Def+=40, yet the bonus cannot vary. Thus the FF is much stronger than it should be otherwise. Despite high costs, I have a large FF complement in my fleets vs. DD&LC due to their high tactical capability).

Re: Cruiser. Yes, it has no strengths. If you graph Def+ vs KT you will notice an inconsistant drop in Defensive ability between LC and CA. So the CA has a higher than expected "Defensive minus" than expected or the LC has a lower than expected Def-. In terms of capability as a warship, the LC, or BC provide more cost effective delta Off/Def per KT than the CA (and DN) if you ignore engine costs. If not, the CA does require 1 more (expensive) engine and is 1 move slower w/ Quantum engines.

The CA is a relatively ineffective warship hull--more costly, less war capable than LC or BC. Whether you vary Def-, Off-, or Movement, the other hulls (besides LC & BC) should be taken into account to prevent unbalancing.

[madkillercat]

Just in case, that Last post is not supposed to be a bash at you, AIC, or Proportions. It's more a why-is-the-AI-so-stupid-and-the-game-engine-so-limited-grr.

[JLS]

I did not at all feel you were bashing AI Campaign. Actually, many of the AIC Players do like the AIC Hull structures and the options that they provide thru out the game and that many of the AIC Hulls - will not fall obsolete

Se4 is very far from a limited game engine, and the se4 AI is not as stupid as you may believe.
It is my belief that the se4 programmers made some wise decisions at the time Space Empires 4 was published, with respects to market a product that the majority wanted and at that time it may have meant at some very small AI expense; however the overall se4 Gold game package is vast in depth and we expect even greater things to come with se5

= = =

Mathematical formulas are tangible to contrive an accounting of something of everything;
however, mathematical formulas are intangible, no mater how one wishes the contrivance - it will never fill the void and can not ever answer the final questions.

[ July 26, 2004, 22:50: Message edited by: JLS ]

[madkillercat]

Hmm, not obselete...ok...

"Limited" is more accurate than stupid, or perhaps "too little for what it's supposed to do". From what I remember, the SE2 and 3 AIs were adequate for their respective domains while the SE4/G AI is insufficient for its. SE2 and 3 were relatively simple, and did not have enough features to require a capable AI. SE4/G however does have enough depth and breath to require a strong AI.

The SE4 AI is "stupid" because it provides minimal challenge w/o significant bonuses. To hopefully clarify why, here are some games I consider having "non-stupid," consistently formidable AIs: Galactic Civilizations, and Warlords.

Yes, SE5 looks very interesting, and I will probably preorder it too.

Oh...then are you saying you have a better way of organizing reality? Or are you saying SE4, and particularly its AI, is meaningless since it is based on mathmatical presumptions Aaron/MM made?

Math is not real not the truth, only a philosophical basis for reality. It is however used by scientists, and also for constructing working system models of environments. For example, SE4/G which models "space empires." The only thing I can think of as capable of filling voids is love, understanding, faith, and good buttered biscuits; I just don't see how you you would actually make a game with them . Feels good, but not much filling.

[QBrigid]

Originally posted by madkillercat:

Oh...then are you saying you have a better way of organizing reality? Or are you saying SE4, and particularly its AI, is meaningless since it is based on mathmatical presumptions Aaron/MM made?

What are you talking about now
madkillercat, you said the stock se4 AI was stupid and se4 was limited not JLS

Originally posted by JLS:
Se4 is very far from a limited game engine, and the se4 AI is not as stupid as you may believe.

The way I understand it, JLS wanted to "introduce a way that would not render small hull sizes to become obsolete when the next Hull is researched".

Originally posted by JLS:
Actually, many of the AIC Players do like the AIC Hull structures and the options that they provide thru out the game and that many of the AIC Hulls - will not fall obsolete

As you said yourself it is a fine balance that AIC acheived and also that Frigates are extraordanary and that is your entire escort force
(that is until your escort force goes up against fighters or a less then equal amount but of equal tech in enemy Destroyers that are well shielded, armored and cant miss Frigates)

Maybe you missed the part where JLS explained this and the benifits that the small Hull Classes have to offer thru out our AIC games.

I think you stated your point madkillercat and I am also not in agreement with you {I like the AIC Hull manuver Ratings}.
Other then the 550 CA could use a little something to help it become a little apealing.
Maybe lower the maintainence and add a little more to its manuverability. I know this will throw that exact (curve graph Def+ vs KT) out of wack but I could just build a few cruisers now for planet bombardment ships or even a few troop assault CA ships on the way to the Battle Cruiser if you deviate from the "graph" like you did with the small AIC hulls JLS and find a nitch for the neglected se4 Cruiser.

[ July 27, 2004, 06:55: Message edited by: QBrigid ]

[QBrigid]

Originally posted by JLS:
As with Automobile engines and Airplane fuselages: all past and present and still to be designed - one would expect a performance ratio curb to be true and holy; however this was and is rarely the case
AIC *may* have taken some liberties and this also lends too some game play options and in game decision making as to the usage of some AIC Hulls:

What is reality, I never seen a Hull actually travel at the speed of light

Large Electrical Pumps and Motors are the same way, they loose the staring torque and require a need for a capacitor just to get it turning. Increasing Amperages and Electrical usage as the machine increases in size and the efficiency chart rating consistency is out the window.
My brother played with enignes and I recall him saying a 283 had more bang for the buck then a 307 block Engine or was it a 302? Well you guys would know better.

Bottom line is we like the ingame flexibility of the AIC Small Hulls and I wouldn’t change much JLS

[ July 27, 2004, 07:24: Message edited by: QBrigid ]

[QBrigid]

Originally posted by Grand Lord Vito:
I BUILT MY FIRST RING WORLD !!!

Felt good didnt it

[JLS]

MDC,
I also plan to pre order Space Empires 5 and it should be extremely interesting and FUN

Madkillercat it does not look like the budge is going to happen for a strict relationship of numbers for the Scout, Escort and Frigate.
I truly wish this was not an obstacle with you, it is only a base for a platform we can build from with se4 Components and in the end design it could be what is desired.
- - -

I received an E-Mail from a Player: Perhaps we could discuss raising the Destroyer 5% to hit and redo the CL through BC to achieve a clear edge for the se4 Cruiser so it may be conducive to build and contribute to our fleets.

What are your thoughts to achieve a more conducive AIC Cruiser?

[ July 27, 2004, 15:58: Message edited by: JLS ]