Devnull Mod is back!

[geoschmo]

Thanks.

[dogscoff]

A few things I remember about the changes you've been discussing:

Devnull's original intent when reducing the size of supply storage was simple: He thought it illogicakl that a 10kt engine stores 500 supplies but a 20kt supply storage component only stores the same amount. I don't know how (if at all) that afects your files.

Secondly, the fighter damage: This may have been introduced to counter the patch 1.35 fighter stacking bug. (remember that one?)Obviously that no longer apllies. Playtesting may be required to rebalance fighter damage.

------------------
SE4 Code:
L GdY $ Fr- C- Sd T!+ Sf-- Tcp-- A% M>M+ MpD! RV Pw Fq+ Nd- Rp+ G-
/SE4 Code
Go to my meagre SEIV pages to generate your own code.

[geoschmo]

quote:

---

Originally posted by dogscoff:
A few things I remember about the changes you've been discussing:

Devnull's original intent when reducing the size of supply storage was simple: He thought it illogicakl that a 10kt engine stores 500 supplies but a 20kt supply storage component only stores the same amount. I don't know how (if at all) that afects your files.

Secondly, the fighter damage: This may have been introduced to counter the patch 1.35 fighter stacking bug. (remember that one?)Obviously that no longer apllies. Playtesting may be required to rebalance fighter damage.

---

I agree on the fighter thing. That thought had occured to me also that fixing the fighter stack bug made some of those changes uneccesary. It's a simple enough matter to just change the damage amounts back to what they were originally, but the problem comes in with balancing that against other changes made in different areas. I have to proceed carefully there.

On the first point, he didn't change the size of the supply storage component as far as I can see. He maade the higher tech engines store more on there own. If the problem was that the engine shouldn't store more that a supply component twice it's size, I wonder why he made the supply storage of the engines higher. The seems to make the problem worse IMHO, even assuming he didn't know about the bug with the design minister using engines as supply components.

Any thoughts?

Geoschmo

[dogscoff]

Hmm. I could have sworn supply storage in Devnull was only 10kt. It was very handy for filling in thos 10kt gaps on small ships. Ah well.

The 500supply in 20kt engine vs 500kt in 20kt storage is a good point though. You could solve both problems at once by reducing supply storage to 5kt / 250supply.


------------------
SE4 Code:
L GdY $ Fr- C- Sd T!+ Sf-- Tcp-- A% M>M+ MpD! RV Pw Fq+ Nd- Rp+ G-
/SE4 Code
Go to my meagre SEIV pages to generate your own code.

[Rollo]

Supply storage was 10kT for 250 supplies, prior to the changes I suggested yesterday. However, in order for the design minister to function correctly the lowest supply storage must have at least as many supplies as the highest engine.

As to why 20kT of storage can only hold as many supplies as a 10kT engine... uuuhm... let's just say that the larger part of the engine (including fuel tanks) it put outside the ship, the 10kT account for the controls and fuselage (or whatever) inside the ship .

I have a couple of more things that I found, I'll post them later (if I just wasn't such a slow writer).

Rollo

[Rollo]

Hi,
here are a couple of things:

• the .emps of the Devnull races do not work. The .emp that I am using for the Vikings (the same one as for the standard game) does work. I assume there were some changes with racial traits in older Versions of Devnull Mod which have been changed back to "normal" in this Version.
  
  
• I agree that the fighter weapons have to be balanced. Also, don't forget that some races (organic, psychic) could use the smaller weapons for troops. Some of them are better than troop weapons in the unmodded game.
  
  
• There is another issue with ship/base/unit designs, this time concerning point-defense: It is no problem to get normal PDC added since you can use the minesweeping ability. When the design calls for point-defense the PDC is added at the beginning, when anti-fighter-missiles I and mini-PD is available the AFM gets added (good). When higher levels of point-defense are researched the AFM gets replaced with mini-PD II (not good, IMHO). This has to do with order in the components file, roman numerals or whatever (S_J, Phoenix-D: Help!). Here is what I would find desirable in regard to AI designs: arrange the components in a way that either ASM or mini-PD always gets added when calling for point-defense (doesn't matter which one really). After that works we could add another useless ability to the other one (star unstable or some such). This way an AI design could ask for each component specifically. For example: if you want PDC, you use mine sweeping; for AFM, you use point-defense; and for mini-PD, you use star-unstable (or whatever).
  
  
• PD eyecandy: when anti-fighter-missiles are launched, nothing is displayed in the game (at least I didn't see anything). This probably has to do with the AFM being a direct fire weapon, but calling for a seeker display. Weapon display "torp" with numbers 10 or 20 looks pretty nice, IMHO (already tried that, it works).
  
  
• Satellite mounts: Personally I would prefer, if the pulsed and large satellite mounts would be reversed in order. This way the AI uses the pulsed mount, which is better IMHO, because of better range and higher "to hit" bonus. Sure it does less damage, but because of the smaller size another weapon could be stuffed in (or some other goodie). If we can reach a consensus on this, fine. If not, just as well.
  
  Here are the mounts' data. Please discuss.
  
  Long Name := Pulsed Satellite Mount
  Short Name := Pulse Mount
  Description := Weapon fires short bursts giving +50% to hit, +25% damage and +3 range, but costing +50%. Requires a satellite of at least 120kT. Can only be used on Direct Fire weapons.
  Code := P
  Cost Percent := 150
  Tonnage Percent := 100
  Tonnage Structure Percent := 100
  Damage Percent := 125
  Supply Percent := 150
  Range Modifier := 3
  Weapon To Hit Modifier := 50
  Vehicle Size Minimum := 120
  Weapon Type Requirement := Direct Fire
  Vehicle Type := Satellite
  
  Long Name := Large Satellite Mount
  Short Name := Large Mount
  Description := Larger sized weapon mount which increases damage from the weapon by 2 times. Increases the range of the weapon by 2. Requires a satellite size of at least 120kT. Can only be used on Direct Fire weapons.
  Code := L
  Cost Percent := 125
  Tonnage Percent := 125
  Tonnage Structure Percent := 200
  Damage Percent := 200
  Supply Percent := 200
  Range Modifier := 2
  Weapon To Hit Modifier := 20
  Vehicle Size Minimum := 120
  Weapon Type Requirement := Direct Fire
  Vehicle Type := Satellite
  
  
• I have suggested this before and I'll do it again: It would be much nicer, if the high-energy weapons would use different weapon numbers. Devnullicus has done this for the various missiles, so let's do it for RB, IB, and WMG as well. Maybe I am alone on this one, but I do think that a Ripper Beam with range 9 and doing 350 damage is a cool thing on a Starbase that the AI should be able to use. The way it is right know, I would always run the risk that the rippers will be replaced by the crappy Incinerator Beam I. Also it would be nice to have ships use RB and WMG at the same time. Just think of a Roman Legionnaire charging in, first throwing his Pilum/javelin (WMG) and then drawing his short sword (RB) for melee. Again, maybe I am alone on this one, but I think it would be cool .[/list]
  Okay, 'nuff said...
  
  Rollo
  
  edit:typos
  edit: more typos
  [This message has been edited by Rollo (edited 22 November 2001).]
  
  [This message has been edited by Rollo (edited 22 November 2001).]

[Phoenix-D]

" When the design calls for point-defense the PDC is added at the beginning, when anti-ship-missiles I and mini-PD is available the ASM gets added (good). When higher levels of point-defense are researched the ASM gets replaced with mini-PD II (not good, IMHO). This has to do with order in the components file, roman numerals or whatever (S_J, Phoenix-D: Help!)."

The AI will use whatever shows up when you press "see only latest". If they BOTH show up, it will pick whichever does more damage.

Suggestion: add a useless ability to each.

Phoenix-D

[Rollo]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
The AI will use whatever shows up when you press "see only latest". If they BOTH show up, it will pick whichever does more damage.

Suggestion: add a useless ability to each.

Phoenix-D

---

Thanks, do you have any idea what determines what shows up when "see only latest"? Is it order in components.txt, roman numeral, whatever...

Adding a useless abilty to both could be the easiest way. I guess that trick can be used for other components that share the same ability as well (e.g. armor). Although it would complicate things, it is a nice way for an AI modder to use a specific component and optimize the designs. I guess some kind of index would have to be done that shows which useless ability causes what component to be added.
I would volunteer to do that, if we are going to make use of that. The question is: Is that really needed? How good to we want the AI to be able to use all the components that come with this mod? It is some extra work.

Geoschmo, what do you think? What does everybody else think?

Rollo

[Phoenix-D]

It's order in the file, IF the components of the same family are all in a row.

Say you had, in this order:
Armor I
Armor III
Armor V
Ion Engine I
Armor II
Armor IV

Armor in one family, engine in another. With all the armor researched, you'd see:
Armor V
Ion Engine I
Armor IV

when you pressed show latest.

Phoenix-D

[Rollo]

Thanks again, Phoenix-D .

Okay, all three PD Versions (PDC, mini-PD, and AFM) have different family numbers and they all show up.
What I still don't get is which one is chosen by the minister. If it was highest damage like you said, then AFM I (50 dmg) would not be replaced by mini-PD II (15 dmg), but it is.
So I thought the minister would use the higher roman numeral over damage (mini-PD II replacing AFM I), but this opens the question why normal PDC is not added in the first place, since it has an even higher roman numeral (PDC IV is available when mini-PD II is).
Very confusing....

Rollo *unable to find a pattern*

edit:

Wow, it gets even more confusing. Mini-PD II is replacing AFM I ONLY on designs that carry normal PDC as well (using the mine sweeping). Designs that carried AFM I as the only point-defense weapon will keep them. After fighters are researched (and AFM II and III become available) the mini-PD II gets replaced again with AFM III. I *think* I am beginning to see a pattern, but right now I see two solutions: A) not worry about it anymore, B) give both the mini-PD and the AFM useless abilities.

edit again: why do keep writing ASM for anti-fighter-missiles? It should be AFM. Anyway, I have corrected that (in this and previous Posts)

[This message has been edited by Rollo (edited 22 November 2001).]