AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent

[Alneyan]

Yes, I would support the removal of the -10 event which could be quite annoying on a Homeworld. (Only a Good or an Optimal Planet would not go Deadly with this event)

As for the population, I will run a few tests with AIC, as I would believe the reproduction rates are ten times lower in AIC than in the vanilla game. (Which means reproduction only occurs at the end of each year instead of each month) But I am not sure how the +x% of reproduction rate is working, and I am not even sure if my obversations are really correct and acurate.

Finally, as for the Heroes, they will need a facility slot I gather? Then it will make the decision a bit harder as you will lose a valuable slot which could have been used for, say, decreasing Maintenance in this system. (Or perhaps I am the only one who is ever lacking open slots for facilities? ) I do like them.

[JLS]

Yes, I would support the removal of the -10 event which could be quite annoying on a Homeworld. (Only a Good or an Optimal Planet would not go Deadly with this event)

Partial Event Recap:

Some have said that the low severity vanilla se4 –5 will put a planet to deadly Conditions.

Some have said that the vanilla se4 Climate Control will never help a Planet out of deadly rendering a planet useless for the entire game.

One has suggested leaving the traditional AIC –10 and removing the vanilla se4 Star Destroyed that is even more sever then a deadly planet, because many feel that Home World Planets rarely get hit by Events.

Many have said your stating HW Planet will never be hit by High and Cat events EVER.

Some have said Home Systems as it relates to the System where your stating HW Planet is located; may lack se4 inherent protections from the Event System Destroyed.

Some have said that if you add other events as in AIC 2.0; even (mild) Catastrophic ones, that odds of being hit with a from Star Destroyed is greatly reduced.

= = =
The decision to remove some of the AIC redundant BAD events, is so when additional AIC redundant Good events are added the Event Occurrences Percentages may be more manageable.

We need some more positive Ideas for good events.

What are some thoughts for some good events, to be added?


[ September 20, 2003, 15:03: Message edited by: JLS ]

[Alneyan]

I can answer to your first two questions. A -5 event may reduce some Homeworld to Deadly level, or, rather:

0.0-0.2: Deadly
0.3-0.4: Harsh
0.5-0.9: Unpleasant
1.0-1.2: Mild
1.3-1.4: Good
1.5: Optimal

According to this chart, all Harsh planets will be Deadly (with a value of 0.0) while half the Unpleasant planets will become Deadly (with a value between 0.0/0.1 and 0.2) The other ones will simply see their conditions drop. Granted, a -5 or a -20 event on an Upleasant planet (with a value of 0.5) will be equally as destructive.

However, you have mentioned the possibility to add +8% and +16% conditions improvement facilities. If so, you would need only eight years with the latest facility to go from Deadly (0.0/0.1) to Harsh (0.3) compared to 39 years with the regular +3% facility of the vanilla game. And of course, you could still add a few additional facilities to speed up the process.

As for these events, well... They are only appalling when they target your Homeworld. If that is a matter to you, perhaps you could add a condition improvement ability on the regular Cultural Centers but just for the Homeworld? (Unlike the Religious CC, whose ability is working on the whole system) That is, only if you fear this might be an issue. But as there will also be Heroes reducing strongly the odds of events, you may think of leaving the -10 event. (I forgot to mention these Heroes when speaking of these events before) Your choice there.

Good events are another matter, as far as I know, there are more bad events than good ones available, is that right JLS? It would make adding such events quite hard. I will give it a thought nevertheless.

[JLS]

Originally posted by Alneyan:

However, you have mentioned the possibility to add +8% and +16% conditions improvement facilities. If so, you would need only eight years with the latest facility to go from Deadly (0.0/0.1) to Harsh (0.3) compared to 39 years with the regular +3% facility of the vanilla game. And of course, you could still add a few additional facilities to speed up the process.

Alneyan, the proposed decision to raise the conditions level 4 and 5 improvement facilities to +6 and +12, is in fact solely based from your time consuming research and should assist in raising most Planet levels to optimal.

AIC Players have benefited from this when we consider the Cultural Centers on an AIC Homeworld has only 3 logical free slots available and only 2 when one is a natural Merchant that prospers with that additional HW CC.

This we all will appreciate

Thanks
That was excellent work

John


[ September 20, 2003, 15:29: Message edited by: JLS ]

[JLS]

Originally posted by Alneyan:
possibility to add +8% and +16% conditions improvement facilities. If so, you would need only eight years with the latest facility to go from Deadly (0.0/0.1) to Harsh (0.3) compared to 39 years with the regular +3% facility of the vanilla game. And of course, you could still add a few additional facilities to speed up the process.

Actually, your +8 and +16 sounds even better.

What do the players feel a realistic number would be, based on a difficult case scenario (HARSH HW) on a HW having 3 slots to be used and with the final slot the player would temporarily replace the Planets SY, after he builds some BSY’s of course.

Proposed Climate Control Facility levels:

Climate Control Facility I = +1
Climate Control Facility II = +2
Climate Control Facility III = +4
Climate Control Facility IV = +8
Climate Control Facility V = +16

Results:
3 Vanilla se4 Climate Control level III = +9
3 AIC Climate Control level V = +48

AIC now with only 3 Climate Control Facility V now has the numbers of a Medium Planets worth of 16 Vanilla se4 Climate Control III’s.



[ September 20, 2003, 15:51: Message edited by: JLS ]

[Alneyan]

Oh, the aforementioned tests were not that long to do, the longest part was the writing of the Posts. (And the correction of my mistakes that is)

Hmm as it is +12 (and not +16 as I thought, don't ask me why), you will need 10 years instead of 8 years to go from Deadly to Harsh. Not too bad. And 24 years to go from the lowest value (Deadly 0.0/0.1) to the highest (Optimal 1.5), while 24 years were just enough to go from Deadly to Harsh with a +5 facility.

Well, for your new proposal, +48 means you could go from Deadly to Optimal in no more than seven years, if you consider all the facilities are built the same year. If you add such facilities, then you should indeed leave the -10 event. (It also means 4 or 5 years depending on the value to go from Harsh to Optimal)

*Stops playing with figures and resumes his game of AIC no-warp instead*

(Edited because of a mistake with numbers, I forgot a year each time. )

[ September 20, 2003, 15:55: Message edited by: Alneyan ]

[JLS]

Originally posted by Alneyan:
*Stops playing with figures and resumes his game of AIC no-warp instead*

No ... come back; I want to talk some more

[ September 20, 2003, 15:54: Message edited by: JLS ]

[Alneyan]

Originally posted by JLS:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alneyan:
*Stops playing with figures and resumes his game of AIC no-warp instead*

No ... come back; I want to talk some more

---

That's asked so nicely. (But I could do both at the same time though) *Pities the poor ones who might have to try to catch up the thread* *Smirks*

[ September 20, 2003, 16:04: Message edited by: Alneyan ]

[JLS]

Great
I am working on the Reproduction replys, now

You have many, very strong points

[PsychoTechFreak]

Originally posted by JLS:
OK, in the least we will be going with the ?5 and the +10 Planet - Conditions Change event.

With the additions of more good and beneficial events, removing the ?10 is further still warranted. Agreed, PTF

Agreed. I reconsider, one of the cat events is planet core instability. With that in mind, a catastrophic -10 effect on conditions is still a nightmare, but it is still much better than core instability. You see, I am not sure what I want...

Finally, as for the Heroes, they will need a facility slot I gather? Then it will make the decision a bit harder as you will lose a valuable slot which could have been used for, say, decreasing Maintenance in this system. (Or perhaps I am the only one who is ever lacking open slots for facilities? [[Wink]] ) I do like them. [[Smile]]

I recall an implemented "use facility" switch in the command line, but it does not work. An on/off toggle switch for facilities would be a nice SE5 feature also, very useful for mining facilities in limited resources games.

Many have said your stating HW Planet will never be hit by High and Cat events EVER.

I will never say that again, it can be reproduced easily with a 2 system galaxy, one player, F12 button test and a reduced events.txt to get only core and plasma instabilities.