Psst, over here, I got the latest patch status... shhhh

[dmm]

My disappointment is because it seems as though Aaron is spending his programming time squashing extremely rare bugs rather than adding features (some of which were promised from the get-go).

I've been programming, in a lot of different Languages, for 25 years. I agree with you that some of the "easy" changes that people have asked for are not at all easy. And some "easy" changes would flummox the AI, so those aren't really easy. (Although a simple on/off flag fixes that problem.) But one doesn't need access to the code to know that some suggested changes would indeed be easy. It's just obvious (to any experienced programmer, that is).

People have been asking: why is it dead around here? The answer is: what's the point of discussing ideas for improvements and new features when the only thing that patches have been doing is fixing bugs?

My advice to Aaron is: spend a little bit of time putting in a few easy new features, and watch the excitement soar!

[Suicide Junkie]

BTW, is anything happening with the unit groupings problem (all sats forming one stack, rather than scattered defensively around a planet)?

We really should have a formation or cluster size setting for Groups of units.

[Dracus]

I would like to see the ablity to add more planet types. Argon is in the files but can not be used.

[Intruder13]

Yes, argon planets would be awesome. BTW, what type of planet does comp_109 colonize?
It appears to be a gas giant colony floating over an asteroid!?

I too would like to see new added features in each patch, esp. component tech. IMO, MM needs to finish fighter weapons, as they are largely incomplete.

[Baron Munchausen]

Not Argon. It's a "noble" gas -- inert. Kinda hard to base life chemistry on that. Let's have CHLORINE back. Now there is an interesting atmosphere. No need to add extra planet images, either. I think many of the green "Carbon Dioxide" plamets look like chlorine worlds, anyway. Just reserve the brown worlds for CO2 and change the green ones to chlorine.

[Dragonlord]

I am glad to hear that the Intel bugfix seems to be working OK. But I never understood in the first place how counterintel was *supposed* to work...could anybody please explain to me how it works now?

[Andrés]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dragonlord:
I am glad to hear that the Intel bugfix seems to be working OK. But I never understood in the first place how counterintel was *supposed* to work...could anybody please explain to me how it works now?

---

This was recently posted in SE4@yahooGroups.com

quote:

---

--- In SE4@y..., e.kolis@j... wrote:
> Does level X counter-intel block only level X intel ops or level X
and
> below? (So you would need all 3 levels running to block all enemy
intel?)
> And it doesn't seem right that if you're spending 50,000 intel
points a
> turn on counter-intel that it should have the same effect (total
blockage
> of all enemy intel) as if you were spending 1,000... that would make
> intel way too WEAK!

It's a bit more complicated than that. As far as anyone can figure
out, based on actual game play and answers from Malfador, is that:

1) Counter-intelligence at any level can block intel ops of any level.

2) Blocking an intelligence project is based on points spent on
counter-intelligence vs. points spent on the intel project. For
example, if you have 10,000 points built up in a counter-intelligence
project, you can block an intel project that costs 10,000 points or
less. (Those 10,000 points of counter-intel may be able to block an
intel project that costs 12,000 points or less; there's an entry in
settings.txt that implies there's a 20% bonus on counter-intel).

3) If you "finish" a counter-intelligence project (i.e., spend all
100,000 points or whatever the cost is), without having to block an
intel project (either because no-one's using intel against you or
because they haven't completed the project yet), the counter-intel
project "fails".

The intent of the higher-level counterintelligence ops is to let you
build up more counter-intelligence points, which (in theory) should
let you block more intel projects. It also gives you a longer period
of protection, since you probably won't have enough points built up in
counter-intelligence to block an intel project for the first few turns
of spending on a counter-intel project.

Does that help answer your questions?


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

---

[Dragonlord]

Not really....sorry
That part of the info I already knew.
But, (after patch) if I have a CI project III running with say 200k points stored up, and I get hit by multiple intel offenses (say 5) worth 180k, will all be stopped? And if so will I then have 20k points left, or 0?
If I think I have enough CI points stored, can I then stop adding points to CI (to avoid "completing" the project) and sorta keep it around on layaway until it's needed?
If so...if you can get an early lead in intel production you could store up say 2 M points in a few CI-3 projects and then forget about CI...

Same example: if I have 200k in one CI project and I get hit by 6 attacks totaling 220k, then only the Last attack gets through right?

[Q]

I too would appreciate new features like drones very much. But I think the bug fix has priority and the new patch will indeed fix some very important bugs IMO. Let's try to be patient and hope the new features will come one day too.

[Mephisto]

My understanding is that you will stop all 5 projects and have 20k left. At least so it seems in my AI games.
But AFAIR you have to keep your projects funded or they will not work. You cannot build a CI and stop giving it support without losing the effect. But you can come back and pick up support if you want any time.


[This message has been edited by [K126]Mephisto (edited 13 October 2001).]