Proportions mod Version 2.2 released

[oleg]

Speaking about cargo:

Please assign "star - unstable" to higher levels of Cargo bays. I remember what you told about optimising AI conservation of resources, but population transports are not the only ones using cargo bays. Mine layers, satelite layers, carriers, troop transports, etc all use cargo bays. It is practically impossible to make AI designs using "cargo" ability because of the variable size of starline modules. If AI will underutilize space on transports with CB 2/3 - so be it, no big deal.

[PvK]

Originally posted by oleg:
PvK,

I am convinced that restoring original DL cargo but raising its size to 40K is the best solution. It will make DL-3 roughly equivalent to CB-3.
Yes, it is possible to make drone carriers by combining DL/CB, but did you try it ? It is just a different and unnessary layer of micromanagement. Besides, it is _very_ difficult to instruct AI to make any sort of usefull drone carrier now. I personally gave up. 40K size will not unbalance cargo and should decrease micromanagemnt considerably.

Yes I've made drone carriers using cargo, even with the AI. I don't consider it essential for carriers or drone carriers to be able to launch all of their drones in one combat turn, though, or to get an exact multiple so as not to have slightly too much space, so it's not hard for me at all. Just put Star-Unstable as a misc ability with a low setting. It's not very difficult, IMO. I don't know what difficulty you're experiencing.

I don't know that I agree though that drone launchers should be 40kT with 100-180kT of storage. 40kT for 100 storage is the same ratio as a cargo bay, plus the ability to launch drones. 2 x Cargo III would match the capacity of one Drone Launcher II, and Drone Launcher III would now be a more efficient spacewise cargo component than the current best cargo bay, which currently costs four times the original cost of a drone launcher, per space. Drones and Cargo tech not being linked, this provides a weenie way to get a better cargo ratio than is possible with Cargo tech, without even researching cargo tech. Players would start abusing drone launchers to cram more people on population transports.

My current Versions are pro-rated based on Cargo Bay I with a very slight advantage per tech level. Mainly, these are for convenience - drone tech is drone tech, not cargo tech:

DL I - 160 mins, size 54kT, storage 100 kT.
DL II - 195 mins, size 68kT, storage 140 kT.
DL III - 230 mins, size 82kT, storage 180 kT.

Drones are a tricky subject and MM obviously spend a lot of time balancing them. They do the same incrediable amount of damage in normal SE IV, but cost a lot of resources and are destroyed in battle. In strategic combat even lowly scout can trigger launch of hunderds of drones for immense lost of resources. I do not consider restoring the speed of large drones as unbalancing. You argue that larger drones make small one obsolete, but, hey, that is the whole point of investing thousands and thousands points into research !

I find the speed bonus from large drone hulls not so much unbalancing as inexplicable (from "advanced materials" - huh?) and uninteresting (techs that make other techs obsolete are less interesting than techs that offer advantages but leave some trade-offs for consideration). I would much rather have research add the possibility of components which could boost drone speed.

Drones do not have extra defence bonus as in standard SE IV. Besides, proportions ECM jammers go up to 31K in size, compared to flat 10K in unmoded game.

Unmodded drones are all -50 to hit, while Proportions drones have different to-hit bonuses per size. I don't really follow why you mentioned this, though. The increase in size of larger sensors/ECM in Proportions is another advantage to larger drones.

PvK

[PvK]

Originally posted by oleg:
Speaking about cargo:

Please assign "star - unstable" to higher levels of Cargo bays. I remember what you told about optimising AI conservation of resources, but population transports are not the only ones using cargo bays. Mine layers, satelite layers, carriers, troop transports, etc all use cargo bays. It is practically impossible to make AI designs using "cargo" ability because of the variable size of starline modules. If AI will underutilize space on transports with CB 2/3 - so be it, no big deal.

I'll have to think about it. In general, the AI's hard coding isn't good enough to actually load any cargo-using ship (except pop transports) to the brim anyway, as far as I've seen. Since Proportions has an important trade-off of cargo bays between cost and capacity, and the gain isn't all that much for the more expensive ones, it's really best for human design artists - I think the AI would mostly (or entirely) waste its resources on it. Also, since cargo tech includes supply storage, and high-tech supply storage is something the AI can really use, it can't be fairly limited by having AI's choose through research.

PvK

[oleg]

I had the following dificulty making AI drone carriers: When drone increases in size, I need more cargo bays per drone launcher, when I progress in cargo, I need less cargo bays per launcher. Thus it is impossible to make AI design drone carrier which will utilize space effectively. But it is a moot point now after you made 1 drone per 1 launcher

----------------
I was thinking mostly about drone carriers when I suggested "star unstable" throught. However, effective troop transport should use cargo bays instead of starline modules because of much higher damage resistance and lack of defence bonus. Extra space of cargo bays 3 will come very handy for troop transports !

"Sorry Sir, we can not load any more tanks, Ministry of Defence contracted to use cheap cargo bays only"

---------------------------

I mentioned size of ECM because its higher size takes over the space of two engines, thus making Proportions' drone less effective than standard.

If I am not mistaking, you are going to make max. drone engines 2,3 and 4, as it was intended, right ? Drones are fun to play with !

[Baron Munchausen]

Originally posted by PvK:
I find the speed bonus from large drone hulls not so much unbalancing as inexplicable (from "advanced materials" - huh?) and uninteresting (techs that make other techs obsolete are less interesting than techs that offer advantages but leave some trade-offs for consideration). I would much rather have research add the possibility of components which could boost drone speed.

Yes, the arbitrary bonus just for 'materials' is odd. I've created special drone engines and changed the 'engines (movement points) per move' rating to give drones a speed advantage without using 'bonus' movement. They are smaller than ships, after all and could logically be faster for the same engine power. I've considered giving the larger drones some 'inherent' supply capacity as well so they would have longer range. That would certainly make sense for a larger vehicle.

I'd like to know if anyone has tried 'special damage' warheads of any sort. Especially plague or neutron (population only) against planets, but also engine damaging or anything else against ships. SE4 combat doesn't seem to use spcial damage types when the warhead is a seperate component inside a vehicle. It seems it has to be a weapon that makes contact with the target outside the vehicle.

[ May 25, 2002, 19:22: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

[PvK]

Originally posted by oleg:
...
I was thinking mostly about drone carriers when I suggested "star unstable" throught. However, effective troop transport should use cargo bays instead of starline modules because of much higher damage resistance and lack of defence bonus. Extra space of cargo bays 3 will come very handy for troop transports !

"Sorry Sir, we can not load any more tanks, Ministry of Defence contracted to use cheap cargo bays only"

That sort of thing is said almost all the time in the actual military. The army with the fanciest uniforms usually loses. Going cheap also tends to win wars (see Sherman tank, etc.).

I understand the theory but in practice I don't think it applies, because the AI is not good at loading up troops or fighters (or I assume, drones). So in practice, it is better for the AI to waste 20 resources on a 50kT empty cargo bay, than to waste 200 resources on an empty 70kT cargo bay. Even if it would use the extra space sometimes, it's not really worth spending 10 times as much for cargo storage unless you are a smart human player who is really going to take advantage of it.

I could add a different tag though for "high-tech cargo storage".

I mentioned size of ECM because its higher size takes over the space of two engines, thus making Proportions' drone less effective than standard.

Oh, I see. That's true in theory, but that's only for mega-high-tech components, which are expensive as well as large and hard to research. I have put AI hints in 2.3 that allow it to choose efficient models in terms of size and price.

On the advantage side for Proportions drone effectiveness, having only 2-4 engines instead of 6 also makes them longer-ranged, especially smaller ones. You could also put efficient engines on them to get longer-ranged (but slower) and cheaper drones.

If I am not mistaking, you are going to make max. drone engines 2,3 and 4, as it was intended, right ? Drones are fun to play with !

Yes, that's correct.

PvK

[PvK]

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
...
I've created special drone engines and changed the 'engines (movement points) per move' rating to give drones a speed advantage without using 'bonus' movement. They are smaller than ships, after all and could logically be faster for the same engine power. I've considered giving the larger drones some 'inherent' supply capacity as well so they would have longer range. That would certainly make sense for a larger vehicle.

Yep, the QNP in Proportions has similar effects using the standard engines. The drone hull has a lower Engines Per Move rating based on mass, so they require fewer engines for the same speed, which means lower supply use as well.

PvK

[ May 26, 2002, 04:05: Message edited by: PvK ]

[oleg]

Well, I don't think it is neccessary to complicate your mod any farther. Extra flag for high-level cargo would be nice but not that important. It is just pitty that right now AI will _never_ever_ use cargo bays II and III, it is a completely lost tech for it.
-----------

Unrelated issue: I think it is a typo in standard (and every other SE IV mod ! ) systemtypes.txt file, but tri-star system II, one that is without any planets, should have a flag "empires can start in " false instead of true. Otherwise it is quite odd to have a homeworld in supposedly planet-free system. It happened to me just right now

[PvK]

Is it really a pity the AI won't build Cargo 2/3, if it isn't smart enough to do anything but lose resources by doing so?

This, though, is the sort of thing that makes me really want MM to make it possible to add an unlimited number of ability tags with whatever names the modder wants. It would be really nice to be able to put in the design file "Cost-efficient cargo" instead of "Star - Unstable", and to not worry about side-effects or running out of usable tags.

As for system tags, yes, I think there may be a couple of funky ones allowed for home systems - I should review that. Meanwhile, enjoy the novelty. Too bad you probably didn't take Crystalline tech.


PvK