Strange happenings

MondoMage · #1 November 28th, 2001, 01:46 AM

I've noticed an oddity in the current Version of the game. Not sure if it's a bug or not, but I thought I'd mention it here and see what you people think. For the record, I'm playing with the latest patch (1.49?) and the latest TDM modpack.

The oddity in question only comes up when I engage in combat. When I have a fleet or ship in orbit around an enemy planet and then bring in another ship or fleet to the same location, the combat screen lists my empire twice up on the top margin where the empire flags are shown. It also cycles through my empire twice per turn. So, in effect, I get to move my ships, the enemy gets to do whatever he's going to do, and then I get to move my ships again - but if they used up all their movement the first time, they don't get to move again. It's really strange, to be sure.

Has this happened to anyone else?

Derek

Puke · #2 November 28th, 2001, 02:26 AM

yeah, there was a thread a while back on that. i dont know if they decided it was a feature, or if its in the buglist for the next patch.

I just noticed one in a 1.49 game upgraded from 1.41 where in a simultanious game, ships fighting sats, the sat designs did not show up in the enemy unit design view. however, in a ships vs ships and ship-launched fighters, the fighters did show up in the unit design list. anyone notice or confirm that one?

dogscoff · #3 November 28th, 2001, 10:43 AM

*Dogscoff produces loudhailer:
"This is not a bug. I repeat, this is not a bug."

The "getting more than one turn in tactical combat" thing is a feature *ahem* introduced by MM in patch 1.49 to address the fact that in combat, the defending player should always get the first turn. Getting the the first turn is a significant advantage and before the patch, first turn always went to whichever playr had the lower player number (so it really pays to be player 1 rather than player 12).

I think (but I'm not sure) that Malfador's intention with th "two turns" thing was that if you had (say) a planet which was blockaded, and then you bring in a fleet to clear the blockade, your forces would be divided into the planet and all the forces which were already there (defending), and the fleet just arriving (attacking). Presumably the enemy ships would be defenders as well, since they were already there. Turn order would then be detrmined accordingly.

You may notice, however, that the player with the lowest player still always goes first, no matter who's defnding or attacking. Ah well, next patch.

Puke: No idea, sorry.

[ 28 November 2001: Message edited by: dogscoff ]

DirectorTsaarx · #4 November 28th, 2001, 04:45 PM

Interesting thought, dogscoff. I had the "feature" pegged as an artifact of the ability in SE4 for more than 2 empires to engage in battle at once. The original problem (since he didn't really get double movement or double firing, just double chances to do either) sounded like the game engine thought he was two different empires.

Of course, since this "feature" didn't show up until 1.49, maybe it's related to the "defender goes first" patch attempt.

Guess it's another thing to report to MM for the next patch set...

MondoMage · #5 November 28th, 2001, 11:44 PM

quote:
Originally posted by DirectorTsaarx:
[QB]Interesting thought, dogscoff. I had the "feature" pegged as an artifact of the ability in SE4 for more than 2 empires to engage in battle at once. The original problem (since he didn't really get double movement or double firing, just double chances to do either) sounded like the game engine thought he was two different empires.[QB]

I'm thinking that that's what happening. For some reason, the game seems to interpret my forces between the ones that were already there, and the ones that just arrived, and considers them to be separate empires, even tho both Groups belong to me.

Further, I've never seen the defender go first in these battles (they've always involved a planet, sometimes with ships or fighters present, sometimes just the planet). It always winds up being me, AI, me again.

And one other thing I forgot to mention, which probably isn't a bug but definitely falls in the "Would be nice if this happened" Category, involves bombarding planets to get rid of the defending weapon platforms.

My ships are all equipped with religious talismans, virtually guaranteeing that every shot will be a hit. However, when firing direct-fire weapons at a planet, none of the shots are shown as hits until the platform itself is destroyed. If the planet is lightly populated to start with, one extra shot could wipe out critical facilities or destroy the colony altogether, with no warning whatsoever.

It'd be nice if an attacker could get some idea of the current strength of planet-based platforms, to avoid accidental overkill, as it were. I've accidentally wiped out more colonies than I can remember due to this....

DirectorTsaarx · #6 November 29th, 2001, 10:00 PM

Maybe you're going first in those battles because you're the lowest-numbered "defender"...

As for weapon platforms & damage, the same thing happens for other units; fighters and satellites are either fully functional or destroyed. Damage taken isn't distributed to specific components. Which causes another problem, i.e. component-specific damage doesn't harm units. Those Tachyon Projection Cannons that only destroy weapons? No effect on fighters, satellites or weapon platfoms. Same for the Engine Destroyers. I'm not sure about armor-skipping weapons...

capnq · #7 November 30th, 2001, 09:16 PM

quote:
Which causes another problem, i.e. component-specific damage doesn't harm units. Those Tachyon Projection Cannons that only destroy weapons? No effect on fighters, satellites or weapon platfoms. Same for the Engine Destroyers. I'm not sure about armor-skipping weapons...

Are you sure about this? I've seen Engine Destroying Weapons fire on planets and show damage being done. It was especially noticable because all the other weapons on the ships were hitting a Planetary Shield.

DirectorTsaarx · #8 November 30th, 2001, 10:13 PM

quote:
Originally posted by capnq:
Are you sure about this? I've seen Engine Destroying Weapons fire on planets and show damage being done. It was especially noticable because all the other weapons on the ships were hitting a Planetary Shield.

Engine Destroying Weapons damaged planet-based items? Did they destroy engines on fighters, or just do generic damage to units on the planet (or the colony itself)? And were the units actually destroyed, or was damage displayed on screen but not applied (I think I've seen this against ships as well: after the engines are destroyed, the engine destroying weapons can still target & hit the ship, and damage will be displayed, but ISTR that without engines the damage isn't actually applied to a component).

capnq · #9 December 2nd, 2001, 12:08 AM

quote:
And were the units actually destroyed, or was damage displayed on screen but not applied (I think I've seen this against ships as well: after the engines are destroyed, the engine destroying weapons can still target & hit the ship, and damage will be displayed, but ISTR that without engines the damage isn't actually applied to a component).

This seems the most likely explanation of what was actually happening. I don't know what was on the planet other than a couple Weapon Platforms and a Planetary Shield; I eventually wore down the shield and glassed the planet.

The most remarkable thing was that an AI built the Planetary Shield (TDM-Modpack Sergetti).

Baron Munchausen · #10 December 2nd, 2001, 12:37 AM

Components within units are not tracked. A unit is either completely working or completely dead. As enough damage is done to destroy a unit, it is removed from the stack/group. It's like the ship stacks in the orignial MOO. Yes, armor on a unit does NOT protect the internals it just increases the total hit points of the unit. But that amounts to the same effect -- it takes longer to destroy the unit.

So, any 'damages only X' weapon type used on units is just like a normal weapon except that it might skip shields. Since these weapons are usually shorter ranged than standard weapons they're generally not a good idea to use against large forces of units.

[ 01 December 2001: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]