Narf's Mod: Almost done shredding the Facility.txt. Basic stuff only.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

*disclaimer: no garauntee i will finish it. i'll try.*

yep. i call it the TechPaths mod. why? because how you play depends entirely on what research path you choose. research into infrastructure at the expence of defence and defend against your enemies with hordes of cheap, low-tech ships. or vice-versa - research into defence at the expense of infrastructure and defend against your enemies with ships that can defeat them outnumbered 2-1. research long range missile's, short range missile's, lots of construction research and build up units faster than your enemy can destroy them.

how am i going to do this? each tech tree will be specific and return specific components. and most will have 20 levels.

since i didn't think to make a poll, quick question: 5%/10% or 20% advancement?

[ January 30, 2004, 05:33: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

[General Woundwort]

A very interesting concept - let me know if you end up dropping it, I may pick it up and finish it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Here is one idea as to how this might work. Say you want to encourage specialization between shields or armor. You could set the initial tech investment for level 1 at a very high cost, and then have the following levels at a much cheaper rate. This would simulate the sweat work involved in "getting the basics", after which improvements come much easier.

In game terms, you would have to spend 2-3 times as many tech points to get level 1 in both armor and shields, than you would have to spend to get to level 10 in either shields or armor alone.

What do you think?

[Ed Kolis]

Originally posted by General Woundwort:
What do you think?<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Interesting idea... would require making the first level a separate tech area, since you can't adjust the individual tech level costs (the formulas are hardcoded)... fits in very well with the theme of the mod! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

A suggestion I have is to remove most or all of the racial techs and graft them onto the main tech tree. It shouldn't be impossible for someone who didn't have temporal technology since the beginning of time (ha ha http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif ) to acquire it - look at the race history of the Xiati, they just stumbled upon it by chance!

[narf poit chez BOOM]

was already going to eleminate racials and have all tech researchable.

that high-initial cost thing sounds interesting. what i'm planning now is to make it so that even if you specialize in tech, your going to have to limit your research options. how well do you think they'd combine? can i get some responces on my informal poll? and what's the largest component size?

whatever the tech advancement is, the research tech is going to have to return a fraction of that. mabye 2/3?

i think i came up with a new happiness type for my mod: hapiness type - resulute: all negative effects serve only to increase your moral as your people are ready to face anything. however, little effect is felt from positive effects.

whadya think? would be good for an empire on the ropes.

think i should make an actual poll for tech advancement?

[ October 16, 2003, 19:50: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

[Fyron]

Your question on tech advancement made no sense as posted (to me, anyways). Perhaps if you clarify it, people can answer it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[Rollo]

yeah, I didn't get the concept either. An example perhaps?

[narf poit chez BOOM]

well, component x has a size (a) of 100 and a generic effectiveness of (b) 100. so, at 10% tech advancement, the size at level (l) 2 is a*(10%*(l-1))=110. and the effectiveness is b*(10%*(l-1))+(b*(10%*(l-1)))=121. thus, the size and relitive effectiveness would climb by 10% per year. or, in other words:
100 100 100%
110 121 110%
121 145 120%
133 173 130%

ship sizes would use the first calculation.

uh, if this is to complex maybe someone could explain it in english.

[ October 16, 2003, 22:19: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

[spoon]

I think he means rather than have specific research areas (such as Missiles and Computers), he is going to have ~ 20 generic areas. Each generic area represents a "play style" and returns all sorts of tech that relate to that play style. For example, if you research the "Superiority In Numbers" tech area, you will get cheap hulls, engines, and weapons that are fragile or otherwise limited in effectiveness. If you research down the "I Like Big Explosions" tech area, you might get great weapons, but crappy infrastructure

Note that this is just my guess, as the mind of the Cheese is not easily navigated, not even with a Spoon.

Edit: on second reading, nevermind - this doesn't answer the question that was asked!

[ October 16, 2003, 22:26: Message edited by: spoon ]

[Rollo]

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
... so, at 10% tech advancement, the size at level (l) 2 is a*(10%*(l-1))=110. and the effectiveness is b*(10%*(l-1))+(b*(10%*(l-1)))=121...<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">umm, yeah, right..

"Look, a monkey!"

[narf poit chez BOOM]

well, actually, i'm going to have a number of very specific tech areas. like 'long range missiles'. 'reaction engines'. what's reaction engines? small size, good speed, lot's of supplies used. combine that with long range missiles and you've got defence ships that can missile dance slower ships to death.

ok...attempt at an english Version.
for the first tech level, the rate of increase is 0%. second, 10%. thus, the size of the item is 100+10%. and the effectiveness is 100+10%+10%. at the third level, the ROI is 20%. so, size 100+20%. effectiveness 100+20%+20%. so, for each tech level above 1, the ROI increases by 10%. IF tech advancement is 10%. if it's twenty, third level ROI 40%,size 100+40%, effectiveness 100+40%+40%.

uh, english enough?
*hopes*

how come nobody understands me when i get technical?

um...effectiviness go up by 5%/10%/20% per tech level?

[ October 17, 2003, 00:24: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

[Mudshark]

Cheese Mod?

[Ed Kolis]

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
i think i came up with a new happiness type for my mod: hapiness type - resulute: all negative effects serve only to increase your moral as your people are ready to face anything. however, little effect is felt from positive effects.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Then their happiness would always be increasing. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif
How about something like Adamant Mod's "Stoic" happiness type - there is little effect from either positive or negative events, sort of like a partial Emotionless?

[narf poit chez BOOM]

hmm...major drop from your bad decisions? i dunno.

you guys do discussions with page, page and a half, 2 page Posts and you can't understand one paragraph from me????

[ October 17, 2003, 04:31: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

[minipol]

Is there going to be cheese and giant mice involved?

Anyway as for your question, i think it's to early to tell what will be a good settings for the advancement percentages. You will have to play test it to balance it out. I would go for 10% but as i said, the effectiveness of this will depend on how fast people can build these cheap units.

[Fyron]

Originally posted by Ed Kolis:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
i think i came up with a new happiness type for my mod: hapiness type - resulute: all negative effects serve only to increase your moral as your people are ready to face anything. however, little effect is felt from positive effects.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Then their happiness would always be increasing. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif
How about something like Adamant Mod's "Stoic" happiness type - there is little effect from either positive or negative events, sort of like a partial Emotionless?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Keep in mind that happiness file was made by someone else, possible Krsqk or Jourin. I need to find out at some point... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[Atrocities]

Sounds like this mod could be incorped into other mods. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Krsqk]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by Ed Kolis:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
i think i came up with a new happiness type for my mod: hapiness type - resulute: all negative effects serve only to increase your moral as your people are ready to face anything. however, little effect is felt from positive effects.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Then their happiness would always be increasing. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif
How about something like Adamant Mod's "Stoic" happiness type - there is little effect from either positive or negative events, sort of like a partial Emotionless?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Keep in mind that happiness file was made by someone else, possible Krsqk or Jourin. I need to find out at some point... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">It weren't me. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ October 17, 2003, 20:57: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

[narf poit chez BOOM]

for Resolute happiness, i could have there happiness go down slowly when things go well. change the name to Defensive. wouldn't be good ordinarily, but if you knew you'd be over your head in the game...

i just finished updating all 180 combat ships to gold and 10% increase. any guesses on why 180 combat ships? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
and now i'm done testing.

[ October 17, 2003, 22:38: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

[Fyron]

Originally posted by Krsqk:
It weren't me. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well that is one possibility off the list. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif It is not in the Eye Candy Mod, that is for sure.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

fisished all 180 engine mounts for the combat ships.

in some ways, making a mod is both easier and harder than i thought. easier, because when filling out entries from a database you can just let your mind go to sleep, harder, because if i work on it to long, i know i'll get *carpet tunnel syndrome

going to add three engine area's, a low-supply use, low speed engine, a meduim and a high. now taking name suggestions. possible names i came up with:
Magnetic-Acceleration Reaction Drive (ion engine)
Gravic Drive
Explosive Reaction Drive

also, any suggestions for other types of engines will be taken.

*carpel tunnel syndrome**.

**hand muscles really owie.

[ October 20, 2003, 21:54: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

[narf poit chez BOOM]

i just finished putting in 20 'normal' engines, based off of Ion Engine I with 10% increase. the size, costs and supply usage are modified by engine speed with (INT(E)/E)*#. supply usage decimals are ignored. maybe i should compensate for having a second ability which is close enough to 100% of actual number to be considered 100% by (((INT(E)/#)+100)/2)*#?

uh, do i have to explain it? has anybody understood my explanations? becuase if anybody has, maybe they can tell me what i'm doing up there. really. i'm just sort of guessing.

*if you havn't yet, read other post below. NEW!*

witt normal engines, an escort will be able to go 66 squares/turn! maybe i should make that my fastest engine and start the others out at 2 and 1?

[ October 20, 2003, 22:58: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

[narf poit chez BOOM]

the grav drive will now be a gravitic drive that provides equal movement, through bonus movement to all ships. since gravity affects all objects equally.

[Fyron]

Gravity is directly affected by mass. The more massive an object is, the more gravitational force is necessary to attract it to the same object at the same acceleration (assuming you can artifically generate gravitational force, which would be necessary for "gravitic drives" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ).

[narf poit chez BOOM]

doesn't a more massive object fall at the same rate as a smaller object?

oh, and the supply usage thing does affect engine supply use, right?

[ October 27, 2003, 22:30: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

[Fyron]

Yes, but objects falling within the atmosphere don't behave the same as two large objects in space attracting each other... The reason why objects fall at the same rate is that he gravitational acceleration caused by the earth's gravity is constant (at the same point on the surface of the earth, relative to two different objects). This is in part because the falling objects have infintesimal mass compared to that of the earth (though technically they do actually move the earth an infintesimal distance closer to themselves as they fall http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ). Objects in space are governed by the relation F = G * M1 * M2 / r^2, where F is force, G is a constant, M1 and M2 are the masses of the two objects, and r is the distance between them. A more massive object causes more gravitational force between the objects, and thus greater acceleration.

Now, since a gravitational drive is pure sci-fi at this point in history, how it works is somewhat arbitrary. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif How did you envision your gravitational drives as working?

oh, and the supply usage thing does affect engine supply use, right? <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Right, as long as you are talking about the supply usage on the engine component itself (not any components that provide just bonus movement though; they have to provide strategic movement), or a mount affecting such a component.

[ October 27, 2003, 22:46: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Yes, but objects falling within the atmosphere don't behave the same as two large objects in space attracting each other... The reason why objects fall at the same rate is that he gravitational acceleration caused by the earth's gravity is constant (at the same point on the surface of the earth, relative to two different objects). This is in part because the falling objects have infintesimal mass compared to that of the earth (though technically they do actually move the earth an infintesimal distance closer to themselves as they fall http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ). Objects in space are governed by the relation F = G * M1 * M2 / r^2, where F is force, G is a constant, M1 and M2 are the masses of the two objects, and r is the distance between them. A more massive object causes more gravitational force between the objects, and thus greater acceleration.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">They only accelerate faster relative to each other, because both are accelerating at a rate dependant only on the other's mass. When both are massive; from a "fixed" perspective, the acceleration a body recieves depends only on the mass and distance of the bodies affeting it (until you get into relativity; but that takes extreme circumstances e.g. black holes vs. rotating black holes). You can get this fairly simply by recalling that Acceleration = F/M. For mass 1, A1 = F/M1 = (G * M1 * M2 / r^2)/M1 = (G * M2 / r^2); for mass 2, A2 = F/M2 = (G * M1 * M2 / r^2)/M2 = (G * M1 / r^2). If you are on M1 and using M2 as your referance, your acceleration = A1 + A2 = (G * M1 / r^2) + (G * M2 / r^2) = G(M1 + M2)/r^2.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

so i won't be able to scale the supply on a bonus movement engine? thought it would be a problem. then thought, if they ignore ship size, then naturally there supply usage will only be reletive to there movement bonus not ship size.

well, the main point for the engine is to have an engine that provide's the same movement to all ships, regardless of size.

shouldn't there be brackets? from what i remember from science, there should
F = (G * M1 * M2) / r^2

so, since my gravitic engine idea currently works by generating a gravity field, that would be
F = (G * M1 + GF) / r^2, where GF is gravity field.

so, the additional pull provided by a larger ship would be balanced out by the additional inertia. so same movement for all ships. works. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

what i'm not looking forward to is reworking all the supply usages so a baseship uses more supply than an escort. <dudn't require a comment.

ok, Jack's managed to confuse me. hey Jack, can you take a look lower in the thread and tell me if you understand my math there? because i'm not sure if i do.

[ October 27, 2003, 23:04: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

[Phoenix-D]

Bonus movement IIRC doesn't ever use suppplies.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

hmm...make them really big and costly?

called them 'displaced gravitic drives'.

[Fyron]

Umm... the parenthesis are irrelevant when it is all multiplication and division (and the division is done after the multiplication from left to right). F = (G * M1 * M2) / r^2 is the same as F = G * M1 * M2 / r^2

Though if you want to get technical, it is usually written as:

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;"> M1 * M2
F = G ---------
r^2</pre><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ October 27, 2003, 23:24: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
shouldn't there be brackets? from what i remember from science, there should
F = (G * M1 * M2) / r^2

so, since my gravitic engine idea currently works by generating a gravity field, that would be
F = (G * M1 + GF) / r^2, where GF is gravity field.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">No; if the GF simulates a mass at some distance, then it should be F = (G * M1 * GF) / r^2, or A = (G * GF)/r^2 - although it is a rather moot point, as SE doesn't allow you to model acceleration, only set velocities. There is a catch to the equation, however - bigger ships are bigger, and r is the distance between the effective center of gravity between the two objects; the GF must be generated beyond the hull to have full impact; otherwise, the portion of the force on the portion of the hull beyond the GF is countering some of the force on the portion of the hull not beyond the GF. Thus, larger ships require a larger r to be effective, but that reduces the force on the ship (bigger r -> slower ship for same drives). If r is constant for all ship sizes, then the exact same gravity drive that moves your worldship will move your frigate at the same speed. Otherwise, the frigate would be faster. Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:

so, the additional pull provided by a larger ship would be balanced out by the additional inertia. so same movement for all ships. works. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Essentially. Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:

what i'm not looking forward to is reworking all the supply usages so a baseship uses more supply than an escort. <dudn't require a comment.

ok, Jack's managed to confuse me.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Sorry about that; mathmatical symbol manipulation confuses a lot of people. I'm not really sure how to make myself clearer; I used essentially the same symbols Fyron did, if that helps any.
Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
hey Jack, can you take a look lower in the thread and tell me if you understand my math there? because i'm not sure if i do. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Is this one the one you mean?
Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
i just finished putting in 20 'normal' engines, based off of Ion Engine I with 10% increase. the size, costs and supply usage are modified by engine speed with (INT(E)/E)*#. supply usage decimals are ignored. maybe i should compensate for having a second ability which is close enough to 100% of actual number to be considered 100% by (((INT(E)/#)+100)/2)*#?
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">... if so, I haven't tried my hand at modding these, and am unfamiliar with what you mean by each symbol (E, INT(E), and #); a word translation table would be useful there.

[Renegade 13]

Is everyone here a math/physics expert? All those computations and equations....makes my head hurt http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Renegade 13

[narf poit chez BOOM]

i just finished putting in 20 'normal' engines, based off of Ion Engine I with 10% increase. the size, costs and supply usage are modified by engine speed with (INT(E+0.5)/E)*#. supply usage decimals are ignored. maybe i should compensate for having a second ability which is close enough to 100% of actual number to be considered 100% by (((INT(E+0.5)/E)+1)/2)*#?
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">i thought i explained what they where lower? oh well. E = engine efficience - speed. # is cost, supply, size. the equation should make it so that if your engine speed doesn't increase due to a fractional increase in speed, the # will decrease. it seems to work. i fixed some problems with the second equation and updated for what i'm using now. the 0.5 is to round off rather than chop, which is what INT does - programing term i maybe shouldn't have used.

Renegade, perhaps this will cheer you up.
X - undefined quantity
spurt - a drip, under presure
so, phonetically, X-spurt...

[ October 28, 2003, 00:28: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

[Jack Simth]

Makes more sense now.

[Alneyan]

Erh, it seems like a good idea Narf. At least, if all these formulas are not necessary to play the mod. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Glad to see I am not the only one who cannot understand all these equations Renegade.

[Ed Kolis]

Now wait... did you say the size of your ships increases by 10% per level, you have 200 hulls, and you're using engine mounts?!? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

I don't thinkn that will work with SE4... for one thing, your largest ship will be 173 million times the size of your smallest, and SE4 only allows a range of 1-65535 kT; for another, to use engine mounts, your largest ship must be no more than 100 times the size of the smallest, because you can't have fractions of a percent in mount sizes, and if you make the larger ships use percents greater than 100, then people will just use the unmounted engines http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Are you sure you didn't mean 20 levels of ships (6.1x factor between largest and smallest), or 1% increase per level (7.2x factor)? Maybe I read your post wrong... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif In any event, both those ratios are smaller than SE4's baseship/escort ration of 10, and isn't the purpose of this mod to make technology and strategies MORE specialized, so shouldn't the ratio be as large as possible so you can have one UberDoomNaught versus 10,000 MiniPeashooterGnats? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

[narf poit chez BOOM]

not as specialized as 10,000 to 1; on a weight for weight basis small ships should be just as usefull as big ships; although they couldn't got toe to toe without a larger wieght, they can run circles around the larger ships.

also, that's 180 ships divided by 9 ship classes, in which case the baseship comes out at over 9000.

yes, people could blatantly cheat by not using an engine mount on the larger ship sizes; the engine mount for the largest baseship is a little bigger than 1500, the size of the smallest baseship. however, i think the people i've met on the forums are smart enough to realize that cheating isn't winning. and for those that do cheat, since engines are a large part of the ship, 33% at default movement rate 11-2, it wouldn't be to hard on PBW to see if someone's cheating, even if your not researching the same, you can load up a max tech game and try to build their ship.

unless you can see mounts in enemy ship design's. i don't know if you can.

[ October 28, 2003, 16:17: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

[Alneyan]

You can see the mounts used in enemy ships designs, if you do know the designs that is. It can be useful to check if the enemy is using regular WMG or Massive WMG for instance. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

As for this matter, well, I am no modder so I cannot really help you. Could you create different families of engines, a mount working for each one? I assume you cannot, it would be too easy.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

the mounts are based of off ship sizes.

if you can see mounts, then all you have to do is look for an E in your enemy's ship's engine's. so that problem is no longer an issue, except for singleplayer. that is, if it's ever singleplayer compatable. and i don't care if you cheat in SP, although i don't think it's healthy to cheat all the time.

can you specify a mount to be used with a certain component family in the AI files?

[Alneyan]

What I meant was to use two engines families, one for small ships, and the other after the 100th ship, when the percentage is above 100%, and so two different mounts based on the ship size. I am not sure if I do make sense though, or even if it would work fine.

There is only a problem with checking, it could be done on non-fighting ships, that is, the ones that you are not supposed to see. But cheating should not be that much of an issue in MP. (Or am I too naive?)

[narf poit chez BOOM]

yeah, non-combat ships could be a problem. but i guess i'm naive to.

the engine's are roughly 100kt; i've tested mount sizes up to 65535 and they've worked.

ship sizes are 20 ships in 9 catagories and three tech area's; engine size is based on 1/3 ship size / by normal number of engines; 11 for escort and 2 for baseship.

[ October 28, 2003, 17:06: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

[gregebowman]

I'm glad you guys understand all of that. I almost flunked algebra in high school and college. Just couldn't grasp it, I guess. I didn't even want to try the higher math classes. Once I realized I had to study physics, I ditched my plans on becoming an astronomer. I'll wait until the mod is finished to see how it all comes out.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

for those of you who are wondering, sick. job. not doing job while sick, but have better chance at doing mod while doing job than sick.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

work proceeds. i've decided to have government center's and palaces and was wondering what non-facility ability's could be used in a facility? perferably ones that would fit a GC/Palace?

[narf poit chez BOOM]

and hey, if someone would be willing to host a preview(hint, hint) i could post a preview.

well, if SJ's doing it, it's gotta be a good idea. maybe it'll even get me to work consistantly on the mod. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

[Fyron]

Email it to admin at spaceempires dot net and it can be hosted. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Check out the abilities section of SE4 Modding 101 Tutorial to see (to my knowledge) what abilities work in the Facilities.txt file.

[ January 06, 2004, 00:18: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[narf poit chez BOOM]

where's the tutorial?

ate hamburger's. emailed. didn't email the hamburger's. thanks.

[ January 06, 2004, 01:13: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

[Fyron]

Drats! Accursed habit of disabling signature... every time I mean to leave it on so someone can go to links in it, I keep turning it off... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif

[Atrocities]

Ya, what a bad habit.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

thanks. did you get it?

[Suicide Junkie]

Imagemodserver can host it as well.

[Fyron]

Tech Paths Mod preview download (http://www.spaceempires.net/home/modules.php?name=Downloads&d_op=getit&lid=365)

Tech Paths Mod preview details page (http://www.spaceempires.net/home/modules.php?name=Downloads&d_op=viewdownloaddetails&lid=365&ttitle=Tech_Paths_Mod#dldetails)

[narf poit chez BOOM]

thanks. well, all that will have to wait. going off to see ROTK again. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ January 06, 2004, 02:27: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

[Fyron]

Oh, if you want any of the info changed on the details page, hit the Modify button.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

i tried to login, but it doesn't like my security code. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

there should be another sad thing. that one looks to much like 'profound greif'.

well, my eyes hurt again. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

how do i get it on the Imagemodserver?

[ January 06, 2004, 06:28: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

[narf poit chez BOOM]

and how would i go about using the image mod in my mod?

Fyron, your modding tutorial link doesn't work.

but if i switch se4modding around to the end of the url, it works.

[ January 07, 2004, 00:05: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

[Fyron]

Just install the image mod into your default pictures folders and use image numbers in your mod files from the image mod. Make note that the image mod is required, and direct people to it.

Ok... the url was working, but has died? Odd. Will try to fix.

[ January 07, 2004, 00:25: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[narf poit chez BOOM]

bleh.

[ January 07, 2004, 01:20: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

[narf poit chez BOOM]

thanks, was just wondering if there was anything special i needed to do.

[Ed Kolis]

random comments-o-doom http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

What's the point of researching new weapons tech when it only gets more expensive and bulkier at the same rate that the damage and range increase? Is all armor going to be emissive in this mod?

You seem to be missing a newline between medium energy engines 17 and 18 in components.txt, that might screw up the game...

... ... 20 levels of engine mounts for EACH hull type??? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif I seriously hope that file is program generated!

What's to, eh, keep people from cheating with the engine mounts on larger hulls? It's rather easy to forget to mount your engines http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

All those hulls... aren't they really going to clog up the hull list? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Originally posted by Ed Kolis:
random comments-o-doom http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

What's the point of researching new weapons tech when it only gets more expensive and bulkier at the same rate that the damage and range increase? Is all armor going to be emissive in this mod?

[well, i fixed it. if weapon size is 100kt and weapon damage is 100, next level it'll be 110 and 120. next level it will be 121 and 142. i think that's the explanation; there's a complete one lower down. generally, armor will be emissive. there will be a few non-emissive's and some armor which rely heavily on emissive.]

You seem to be missing a newline between medium energy engines 17 and 18 in components.txt, that might screw up the game...

[well, it doesn't complain when i load it, but thanks.]

... ... 20 levels of engine mounts for EACH hull type??? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif I seriously hope that file is program generated!

[nope. all typed by hand. with a spreadsheet program in the lower half it was...well, not as hard as it might have been.]

What's to, eh, keep people from cheating with the engine mounts on larger hulls? It's rather easy to forget to mount your engines http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[um...well, other people can see mounts. second, i think i'm going to rip a page of SJ and have the abbrieviation be 'OK'. other than that...well, generally there's a lot of difference between mounted and unmounted engines and well, that's it.]

All those hulls... aren't they really going to clog up the hull list? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

[well, they do and they don't. there's a lot of them, but all you have to do is look for the roman numeral on the end. it actually shouldn't take long to find the hull you want.]
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">thanks. all input appriaciated.

[ January 07, 2004, 03:04: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

[Krsqk]

What's to, eh, keep people from cheating with the engine mounts on larger hulls? It's rather easy to forget to mount your engines http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You could always bump up supply usage on the large engines by a factor of 100, then use the mounts to reduce it back to normal. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Fyron]

Bump up cost by 100% too... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[narf poit chez BOOM]

if you'll take a look at the engine sizes and mounts, that may mess things up at low levels.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

look, i got a math problem i don't know how to describe. if there's any math genuises out there, i'll send you two files, one is the spreadsheet file for the resource converter and the other is for the ultra-recycler. the spreadsheet for the resource converter does what i want, the spreadsheet for the ultra-recycler is supposed to do the same, only with a reverse efficiency series. it doesn't.

i'll try to explain what i'm doing as well as i can, but it's rather hard for me.

to clarrify the problem more, the percentage series goes from 50% to 93% in 20 steps and the critical number is 100%-the percentage.

[ January 30, 2004, 02:16: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

[narf poit chez BOOM]

*sigh*

i feel like i'm being backed into a corner with this mod and the only choice i have is which corner i'm backed into if i'm going to complete it.

for those of you who don't know, ships in my mod are divided into three research area's, small, medium and large, with three ship sizes in each. each size catagory is supposed to be the equal of every other, just not in the same area. ship speed is arranged so that, with 30 or 33% of it's space dedicated to engines, ship speeds range from 11 for escort to 2 for baseship.

ok, this is the basic problem. on one of my early tests of the mod, in the simulater, i noticed that the small ships where racing in, shooting of there missiles at the big ship and racing out. this is great. guerilla tactics are the tactics people using small ships should employ. except for one thing: the big ship didn't get a chance to fire, because they where never in range on it's turn. this was bad. in combat, big ships should be able to take more than there cost in small ships, because the small ships have the advantage of being able to run around the big ships outside of combat.

so, enter solution number 1: make a capital Version of each weapon, the medium and big ones sized so smaller ships can't use it. the medium and big size would have a +1,+2 or +2,+4 range increase and maybe damage increase. enter problem number 1: that means 1, maybe 2 weapons and most, a few normal weapons and no emissive armor unless i eliminate the normal weapons, because with emissive armor they'd be useless. this means no combined arms ships, although you could still have combined arms fleets. also this may render only the fastest ship in each size or some of the sizes useful. comments? help?

enter solution number 2: mounts for each ship size. that would mean that weapons with power decreases wouldn't work right, but i can live with that. each large ship would have a range increase that would mean it could have a chance of hitting smaller, faster ships. ideal, except mount range increases don't work right for missiles, they don't increase maximum range, only move the missile x number of squares out at launch. this would mean that missile would be a bad idea on large ships. another limitation. i want the mod so you could use any logical strategy you can think of. but i can live with it. comments? help?

third solution, lot of work, but ideal. also, impossible: component restrictions for ships. different Version of each weapon for each ship. unfortunatly, or perhaps fortunatly for my fingers, there are no component restrictions.

[ January 30, 2004, 19:56: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]