AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent

[madkillercat]

Originally posted by QBrigid:

quote:

---

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

---

This:

Originally posted by JLS:
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.

I should have said: What are you talking about now
and quoted him before I questioned him, eh?
My interpretation of JLS's above words are:
"Math, what's math. who cares. I like things the way they are, and so do my friends and probably their doggie too."

Originally posted by QBrigid:
madkillercat, you said the stock se4 AI was stupid and se4 was limited not JLS

quote:

---

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 [snip]

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}.
[/QB]

---

I "saw" JLS's explanation. As I mentioned, I consider hull specific changes to be "pre-determined" efficiencies. In short, my already stated opinion is such hull "balancing" is a work-around for weak AI. or pre-determined efficiencies is work-around for de facto weak AI. I could already see my impending loss in the polls regarding this opinion. I did not/do not "expect" anyone to support my view on the AI. My goal with that Last post was to clarify since JLS SEEMED to misinterpret what I said:

pre-determined efficiencies <= bad AI

as

no-obsolete-small-hulls => pre-determined efficiencies <= bad AI
no-obsolete-small-hulls <=> bad AI
no-obsolete-small-hulls <=> bad AIC
no-obsolete-small-hulls <=> bad AIC, it sucks, its sooo bad

Originally posted by QBrigid:

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

I did not see that coming.

The AI is strong. The AI is god. SE4 is greatness. There is nothing wrong with MY game.
Hell, SE5 isn't even needed. Just slap Star Fury graphics onto SE4, and us fanatics, no fans will have 3D greatness too.


Anyway, don't change the hulls if you don't want. I just thought it strange to have such inconsistancy when almost everything looked like consistant within the AIC universe rules. I also would have thought it strange if the Millenium Falcon appeared in the middle of a Federation battle with the Dominion. But then, flexibility and understanding do make the world go 'round--or something.

[JLS]

Please, lets us not all let this get out of hand with missed or partial quotes and rhetoric’s.

MDC - I do desire your input: Do you have any positive advise to share with regards to the neglected se4 Cruiser to become more conducive?

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 newer 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.

[ July 27, 2004, 17:15: Message edited by: JLS ]

[JLS]

Originally posted by madkillercat:

Anyway, don't change the hulls if you don't want. I just thought it strange to have such inconsistancy when almost everything looked like consistant within the AIC universe rules.

Thank you madkillercat

I have failed to explain fully the intent to add a little individual diversity to some AIC Hulls and to keep obsolesce to a minimum - please except my apologies.

[ July 27, 2004, 17:17: Message edited by: JLS ]

[madkillercat]

Originally posted by JLS:
MDC,
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?

If simulator results don't push it too far ahead of smaller OR larger hulls. Also, by raising Destroyer Off+ by 5% you start a trend where every other hull size has better Off+ than the previous hull size--like a zig-zag line.

Making the CA a better contributor is not so simple as your design objectives include hull-non-obselesence. Obtainity parity between the LC - BC range while maintaining the upper and lower ranges will be difficult. Some factors to keep in mind:

Hull Off+ and hull Def+ follow a consistant trend from the DD through heavy baseship range. To simplify balance testing, hold one constant, and only twek the other.
e.g. holding Def+ constant. With each hull size, the increase is KT becomes more significant. So too high Off+ gives a significant margin of superiority to heavier hulls, and can make smaller one obsolete. Coupled with smaller mounts/less Off-, a large hull with many small mount but accurate weapons becomes unbalancing.

Movement is also dangerous due to KT increases between classes. Your larger hulls are generally becoming even larger and speeding them up noticably will improve those large hulls too much. Likewise, minimal changes do little good since max movement is 9+/-1.

Hull KT shifting of CL - BC is also difficult since there is little shifting possible due to hulls above and below that range. Any changes to hull KT will require changes to Off/Def and movement. Complexity make KT changes prohibitive without extensive testing.

One approach is to come up with a rationale for ships in that size range. There already is one for the scout through frigate hulls. The escort being hard to hit, and the frigate being fast. Come up with some role for the hull that is consistant within the world you have created.
e.g. fast BC's sacrifice some hull intregity/ECM+ to be able to bring in heavy weapons.
e.g. CA's "armored" by good ECM/Def+ protect transport throughfares from hit-and-run enemy attacks.
I don't know how you are playing your campaigns so you'll come up with better rationales than I can.

Originally posted by JLS:
MDC,
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.

Obstacle? I don't care whether or not it is changed--SE4 is just a game and AIC just a mod. You have a rationale for for the change, sounds fine to me. We just differ in WHY we think such changes were made.

Timeline:

I mentioned a bulge.
You said hull flexibility, etc.
I said no, it's weak AI.
You said hull flexibility, etc.
You also said...I'm not sure what you said about the void and math not be real.
I said, weak AI.
You said (above) let's change the subject.

[madkillercat]

Originally posted by JLS:
Please, lets us not all let this get out of hand with missed or partial quotes and rhetoric’s.

MDC - I do desire your input: Do you have any positive advise to share with regards to the neglected se4 Cruiser to become more conducive?

How evasive for someone who recently related "filling a void" to a game/mod.

Re: CA hull, see below. You have your work cut out for you.

[madkillercat]

Originally posted by JLS:
I have failed to explain fully the intent to add a little individual diversity to some AIC Hulls and to keep obsolesce to a minimum - please except my apologies. [/QB]

I did realize your intent. I just view what you did more as a way to cover for the AI than to keep obsolesce to a minimum. You may not have intended or thought of "patching" the AI, but it is one of the things those tweaks seem to achieve.

[JLS]

You have a rationale for for the change, sounds fine to me. We just differ in WHY we think such changes were made.

Fair enough

[JLS]

Do not forget to put the Engineering Section (less ship maintenance), and a Self-Destruct on your Orbital Resource Station, this way you can forget about it when the deeds are done

How is the AI Campaign with the Fyrons FQM style game coming along, FQM is a lot of fun.


Did you place that Sphere World?

[ July 27, 2004, 19:09: Message edited by: JLS ]

[Grand Lord Vito]

I have always posted FQM is a great addon to AIC and is perfect for the players that like astro mining
I will stick with ring worlds.
I followed Geos post. To build two BSY with a yard ship, then have the SYS help one BSY with the ring world components and the other BSY start building the ring world generator and timed for everything to be done at the same time.

Some of the LAN games are finished in our group. I am sure ther are a few players that would want to start a new
COLONIZE OWN PLANET ONLY AIC-FQM game.

[QBrigid]

No more complaints about FQM Asteroids from me, playing a {Colonize own type only) AIC and Fyrons FQM style game is like PLAYING A WHOLE NEW GAME !

I am at odds with the Sallega AI Player, so I doupt I will have a Sphere world soon.