Compiled Questions/Bug List/Wish List

[Tampa_Gamer]

I figured I would post a recent a e-mail I sent off to Malfador, to see if anyone could answer any of the questions I posed. . .

QUESTIONS

(1) The ability "To Hit Add" is used for both bases (as a weakness) and small ships (as a strength) - but the value is positive in both is this a bug or is their a relationship within the program that I missing?

(2) The facility "Urban Pacification Center" is supposed to decrease anger - but the modifier value is a "positive" value. Most good events have a "negative" value in the happiness.txt file. Should the facility have a "negative" value?

(3) Should troops be able to land if the planet has a shield up? I thought it would be similar to spaceship combat boarding ships where the shield must be down first.

(4) Please provide a list or indicate where I can find the Weapon Family #s used in the design types file (these numbers are different than those used in the Component file)

(5) Please clarify the difference between the abilities "Combat To Hit Add/Dec" and "Combat Modifier - System"- Specifically, who (defender/attacker) should use them and what values to use (-/+) when you want to provide a weakness or strength?


BUGS

(1) Enemy mines still show-up during combat even if I do not have the proper sensors.

(2) If a planet is rioting, resupply and spaceport facilities (system modifications) still function - should this be? If so, could you provide an option in the set-up to have these non-functional during a riot?

(3) I got a message once that I triggered my own minefield and even lost a ship. Please let me know if you want the saved game file.

(4) There is no "defense ship" design in the AI even though there are calls for it. I made a design nonetheless (AA and repair), so its not a big deal to me personally.


WISHLIST

(1) Ability to attack planet with more than one troop ship at a time

(2) Shield hit and movement .wav files for ships in tactical combat (you can put in placebos now so people can continue to have no sound, but those that want to tweak can do so to their hearts content)

(3) Need abilities added similar to "Combat Modifier - System", but limited to Sector or Fleet (this would allow a lot more facilities/components variety)

(4) AI should re-evaluate xx number of years whether to (i) retrofit ship to newest design type, (ii) auto-upgrade facilities and (iii) re-evaluate planet type and production after significant amount of time passed to make sure still efficient.

(5) Provide a way to toggle a planet so that it would not show-up in the "Planet" list of production queus (this would be helpful for small planets which get maxed-out early and really are not touched for the rest of the game except for auto-upgrades)

(6) Chance to discover tech when taking a planet over by troops (or alternatively, by scrapping unknown facilities)

(7) Add ability to be used in compenhancement file that would allow us to make Seekers harder to hit or more damage resistance

(8) Add ability to be used in compenhancement file that would allow us to rapid fire a mount with an accuracy penalty

(9) Ability to target intel ops on specific Groups of facilities (already have Groups based on group names in facility.txt file)

(10) Separate volume controls for music and sounds (I like my sounds high, but music low in background)

(11) When using the "upgrade option" in the design menu, have the ship name default into the new ship design (so it can be edited).

(12) Add 3-5 additional pics for each hull size (you can put placebos in for now all based on same pic, but for those that want more variety can modify their own). This would allow for more variety between support/attack ships of the same size

(13) Expand ground combat so that it is similar to space - I have an extensive post about this on the Shrapnel Board with several ideals - I have also heard others discuss this)

[Baron Munchausen]

Re: question #1 --

No, 'Combat to Hit DEC' is used to give an advantage for smaller ships, while 'Combat to Hit ADD' is used to give the disadvantage to bases. This does clarify why fighters have always seemed so wimpy, though. They are given a HUGE 'Combat to Hit Add' bonus with a description saying it increases their ability to HIT OTHER SHIPS. If this is the case, then bases also have a 'to-hit' bonus and not a bonus to BE hit, because it's the same ability used on bases. So, which way does this ability really work? Should they have "Combat to Hit Dec" with a negative value instead? Hmm...

As for your other questions: The Urban Pacification Center works fine, so the bonus is correct. Would be interesting to have a facility that INCREASED unrest, though. Maybe a genetic engineering facility that scared your population? http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif Troops have been able to land despite shields since SE3, so this is just as it has always been. The Weapon Family numbers are in the components.txt file with all the other information about the weapons. Read the ENTIRE entry for a weapon and you'll find it. Combat to Hit Add/Dec seems to affect the ship it is mounted on (or added to as a default). As a component ability the "Add" increases ability to hit the enemy -- Combat Sensors, while "Dec" decreases the enemy ability to hit you -- ECM. If these abilites don't work the same in VehicleSize.txt as they do in components, then fighters have been given a very large disadvantage for a long time, but if they do then bases have had an undocumented advantage. 'Combat Modifier - System' seems to work only for the Empire that owns the facility, so you want it to be positive. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif We have asked before if various religious facilities, the Nature Shrine for example, will affect only your own planets, friendly planets, or all planets. Most of these "system wide" abilities need to be clarified.

Re: Wish #1 -- apparently the way ground combat works has been changed. It does not occur DURING ship combat anymore but during the strtegic phase of your turn. So, you drop as many troops as possible during ship attack, then wait to see the result as your turn is executed after you "end turn". I've got to drop some troops and try it myself soon.




[This message has been edited by Baron Munchausen (edited 27 November 2000).]

[Cryptotec88]

I have a bug to add to your list. The first time it happened I just thought it was a fluke, but now it just happened again. I had not researched Fighters at all when a enemy Light Carrier showed up on the doorstep. I decided to capture it instead of doing the research (Grin!) After the battle, I ended up with a captured Light Carrier and a Light Cruiser. I sent them to a yard to be analyzed. When the Light Carrier was analyzed, it gave me the following Techs: Fighter Bay I, Fighter Cockpit, etc...filling out the level one fighter techs. Then it gives me this: Fighter Level 2, Fighter Bay II, Medium Fighter. Now this was a Light Carrier, not a regular Carrier. I consider this a major bug. This is the second time it has happened to me, but this time I have the save game files right before, and right after it happened. Please email me or reply in this thread how I send them to Malfador.

Cryptotec88
email: bnale@earthlink.net

[Tampa_Gamer]

I usually send them to info@malfador.com or bugs@malfador.com

[This message has been edited by Tampa_Gamer (edited 05 December 2000).]

[Taqwus]

Cryptotec -- it may have been a light carrier, but what tech fighter bays did it have? You can put fighter bay III's on a small transport if you so desire...

[code]
Minor bug: when using an enemy ship that I've captured with espionage, the 'propulsion experts' +1 bonus starts on the *second* turn. Either the bonus shouldn't be there at all (because I didn't build the ship) or it should act on every turn including the first.
Minor bug: The hit that destroys the Last weapon platform on a planet appears to do extra damage, at least if you watch the blue/red damage report shown briefly.
Major bug(?): Organic armor regeneration -- regeneration from undamaged armor appears to repair damaged armor (i.e. 6 OrgArm III -> 180 pts/turn even if only the first two pieces were hit). Not completely sure of this, needs testing.
Minor typo: The description for massive ship mount says minimum 1100kt, the vehicle size field says 1200kt. Doesn't really matter in default setup because there are no ship classes in (1000kt, 1500kt) anyway.
Minor typo: Medical lab description should say 'cure', not 'prevent' -- either that or the one-turn die-off needs to be calculated *after* plagues are cured.
[\code]

------------------
-- The thing that goes bump in the night

[Taqwus]

Minor and major tweaks I don't recall previously suggesting/hearing, e.g. major tweaks such as more mount abilities or limiting size of minefields so that my MLs don't get too obsessed and put over 900 on one warp point.

* Option for skipping ships under Minister control. Better yet would be an option to skip animating them (i.e. just computing outcome of their actions), but that's dangerous until path-finding issues et al are resolved.

* Ability to detonate own seekers (for preserving population after you've just thrashed all the WPs).

* Option for ships/fleets to not use strange warp points.

* Ability to save Empire Options settings as default for new games. I don't forsee ever playing without, say, the shipyard/resupply/spaceport letters toggled on.

* Making transport minister transport population to empty colonies, and no minister should ever fully depopulate a planet not subject to imminent destruction (planet/star instability); they *should* depopulate planets subject to imminent destruction, and not repopulate them. As noted before, but it bears noting again, it should not mix races w/ different atmospheres except in extremis (evacuation before planet/star destruction), and it should remedy this when possible.

* Minelaying ships should not unload like maniacs unless they're unescorted and expected to die. Doing strategic combat using a fleet of 30 high-tech BB/DNs (misc roles -- minelayer/sweeper/recon, shipyard, heavy carrier, warp creator/destroyer, long-range beamer, short-range beamer, missile launcher) against a puny force involving DU escorts, my MLs panicked, resulted in pointlessly leaving 56 separate minefields of 1 mine each (non-recoverable of course).

* Ships fidget too much in both combat and system view, wasting supplies. If there are no more enemies (including seekers), they should stop. If they are bLasting a defenseless planet from range 1, they should stop moving. There should always be a reason for moving, and never for moving in cycles w/o changing state (like launching/recovering units, resupply, etc).

* Tech report info (spying) isn't added to the tech view, IIRC. It should be.

* A ship out of supply entering a fight starts with no shields; a ship that uses its Last point of supply on turn 1 doesn't drop them. This is inconsistent. Likewise, weapons which take supply -- all of them, IIRC -- should stop firing, but they don't.

* The new Crystalline facility that adds up to 60 shield points per ship does not appear to be that useful, esp. at the 20-pt level, since shield strength increases rather rapidly w/ tech. The Solar Generator is worse, because even at the highest level it costs more than a Monolith III (10k/10k/10k vs 10k/5k/5k IIRC) and needs three stars to produce the same output -- i.e. you need to research lots of Stellar Manipulation, which already gives you monoliths earlier than it gives you star-making components.

* The CompEnhancement.txt has a typo in it; while the description for Massive Ship Mount says 1100kt suffices, the vehicle size field states 1200kt is required. It actually has no effect normally because there are no hulls within the range [1100,1200) if memory serves but it's still inconsistent.

* When a race surrenders, you only get one level per new tech max. Even if this is intentional, it results in a very bizarre technique -- using PPP simultaneously since if the PPP creates another faction, it'll have the same tech, receive your surrender message and probably surrender giving you one level per superior tech area. Thus it can be more to your advantage to create a new faction via PPP than for it to "work" and join you immediately. Still, PPP rarely works now.

* A minister-controlled colony ship with a damaged colony pod should head to a repair colony if the repair minister is on. It doesn't right now, and instead proceeds to attempt the impossible (namely, colonize a planet).

------------------
-- The thing that goes bump in the night

[Tampa_Gamer]

Here are some additional bugs/questions/wish list items as sent to malfador. As always, if anyone has an answer please post a replay

QUESTIONS:

(6) The "Abilities.txt: file lists "Modified Maintenance Cost - System" as an ability, but the Crystalline Restructuring Plants use an ability called "Maintenance Cost - System" which is the correct ability?

(7) Fighter Bays II & III launch 1 & 2 fighters, respectively - should this be 2 and 3?

(8) Boarding party attacks use all of the boarding party components on a ship for each attack. Should the usage be one attack, one component or does using additional components give you a higher percentage of success (please explain how the calculation works regarding defensing security forces).

BUGS:

(5) There does not seem to be a need for Psychic Scanners II & III as they all have the same ability as Version I.

(6) When a ship is destroyed in a blackhole, the ships stats appear in the upper left corner and disrupt the menu/screen graphics so that you still see portions of the ship stats for several turns.

(7) The Amon'Krie General AI file has the demeanor/culture types reversed.

(8) When ships encounter a blocked path they chew up all their remaining move points moving back and forth between two points instead of stopping (and thereby letting you use remaining points to get them out of the situation).

WISHLIST

(14) Add a separate user-defined maintenance % for each of the following: fighters, troops, sats, weapons and facilities (similar to what we now have for ships) - by letting everyone define their own maintenance % - it would end the long debate on this subject.

(15) Game mechanic option upon startup to limit main weapons fire effectiveness against sats/fighters to a maximum of one weapon - one kill.

(16) Allow fighters to "reload" certain weapons during tactical battles

(17) Place limitation on number of missiles/bombs usable during combat similar to MOO/MOO2

(18) Allow different ships sizes (currently all are 1x1) similar to Armies of Armegeddon where there could be 1x2, 2x2, 3x1 and 3x2 units (planets could still be 4x4 or 5x5) this would allow the artists to take advantage of the larger canvas area and provide some pretty detailed ships and also allow for some disparity between a baseship and an escort.

[This message has been edited by Tampa_Gamer (edited 05 December 2000).]

[Kodos]

And another thing...!

Why is it that the Repair Bay and Space Yard components can repair 3, 5, or 8 components at their respective levels, yet the planetary Space Yard Facility can only repair 5 components at all levels? The amount of resources used by the planetary Facility in constructing ships far exceeds those available to the component Space Yard --- shouldn't repair ability be on a par with this?

[Cryptotec88]

Taqwus-

That's true, and I should have mentioned that in my post, the light carrier in question had level 1 fighter bays.

Cryptotec88

[Arc.Smiloid]

I'd like network compatibility. I have a network and I would love to use it.

If enough people want it, or it is easy to implement, that would be awesome.

If few want it and it is hard to implement, don't bother on my account, more important things to attend to, like AI.

[Seawolf]

I guess I am missing something but what is the advantage of network capability in a game like this? it is turn based not real time. If you have network connection you should have e-mail ability too. I guess I just don't get it.



------------------
Seawolf on the prowl

[James Sterrett]

Using email across a LAN can be tricky. 8)

Optimally, you could play a game across a LAN without having to move any of the files yourself.

[Mephisto]

Two more minor issues:

1.) Resupply should occur after entering a resupply sector not - as it is now - first resuply and then deduct the cost of moving into the sector.

2.) When fighters are launched in strategic combat please list them as every other ship so we can see how many fighters where there and how many where destroyed. At the moment launched fighters are not displayed except you already had a fighter group in your fleet and you launched additional in the battle. In this case the counter for figters is going up correctly.

Does anyone bother and send all the reports off this topic to malfador?

[jowe01]

Wishlist:
Improve the AI !
Improve the AI !
...
(repeat that a hundred times here)

[Jubala]

I agree with Arc.Smiloid about network play. It would be great to play a game (turnbased or sim) over network and fight the battles in tactical mode. I'd just love to dazzle my friends with my ingenious designs and tactics. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

I also think it should cost to repair components. Something seems kind of strange when a ship that has one working component left is repaired to full operational status in one turn with no cost. I mean, it's practically building a new ship that's happening. No biggie, but still.

And I want multiple buildqueues on planets. One for the space yard when built and one for the planet proper. And I want to be able to decide which ships get repaired first if more than one is busted up. SE3 had a quite good system of queues for this. I wonder why it was changed.


Come to think of it, I find it strange that a ship can be built on for 4 turns and then the design can be edited and the ship being built will have the edited design when finished. Or a ship that's been built on for 4 turns can be replaced (reorder queue) by a completely different shipdesign and all the work done on the first ship is transferred to the second ship. Also something that couldn't be done in SE3 with the way construction worked there.


I have some ideas on advanced trade, advanced missiles and advanced damage models, but I doubt it's anything we'll see in a patch so I don't know if it's any idea to post them. Would probably require heavy modification of the code.

[This message has been edited by Jubala (edited 07 December 2000).]

[Mephisto]

Oh, no problem! http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tampa_Gamer:
Mephisto - yes, I bother. I periodically take all the bugs/questions/wish-list items and e-mail them to malfador. But it doesn't hurt to have someone else doing it as well.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Arc.Smiloid]

Something that just came up in a game I played.

I have a liking to create a heavy carrier and load a space yard on it. This ship becomes the Command Ship and leads every fleet I own. The General idea being that the Command Ship can build fighters and such to keep the fleet strength up.

Lo and behold.. The Command Ship won't move while building ANYTHING. Just strikes me funny, it makes sense for immobile things like space stations.

The Change: Ships can build while moving, unless they are building Bases (or maybe other ships).

I just like the idea of fleets based around one big multi-purpose vessel. (100% Spacefaring races anyone?)

[Warlord Adamus]

Arc-That's how it was a while back. Problem was people were building bases, ships, and mines on the move, it was kinda silly. I'm not sure if the code could be manipulated to only build units on the fly, if so MM probably would have done that when they originally fixed it. Being able to replace fighter and troop losses in deep-space might be cool, but I think its too easily abused. As far as that command carrier, try a baseship. It's a bit slower but it can carry many more fighters than a heavy carrier bogged down with a 400kt spaceyard.

[Taqwus]

A 'unit factory' (that is, a smaller shipyard that only produces units, not ships/bases) might be saner -- or even, say, specific mine factories, fighter factories, et al.

A full shipyard that can move w/o clearing its queue would be more than a bit abuseable. Even if it can't build while moving, just keep its construction on hold, a shipyard could mostly finish up a heavily-armed Starbase, stop production when it's 1 turn away, cloak, move into enemy territory over a homeworld, uncloak, and resume.

------------------
-- The thing that goes bump in the night

[Tampa_Gamer]

Mephisto - yes, I bother. I periodically take all the bugs/questions/wish-list items and e-mail them to malfador. But it doesn't hurt to have someone else doing it as well.

[Instar]

Send these off to MM, especially the bugs! (Because you cant complain about them if you dont submit them!)

[Arc.Smiloid]

Here's a new thing that bugs me..

EMERGENCY BUILD!!!

This is simply waay too useful, and the slow build penalties are too minor. If its really emergency build, make it only effective for real emergencies!

Simple Math, ten turns emergency, ten turns slow. If a planet builds with a rate of 2...

(4 x 10) + (1 * 10) = 50 production in 20 turns.

Now, if you built normally for the same amount of time..

2 x 20 = 40 production in 20 turns..


In the long run, EB is too effective. Make the slow build time triple, or turn slow producion into NO production at 1.5 turns per 1 turn on EB. In the long run, EB shouldn't produce more than an equal amount of time on normal build, in fact it should be less. Plus, the AI doesn't use EB does it?

(Waiting for AI to be patched)

Also, I think it would be best that construction ships only be able to build things that are stored in cargo like troops and such while moving. If a ship or base is at the top of the queue the c.ship should be immobile.

[Courageous]

You can implement these suggestions yourself.
There are settings for them in your data
directory.


C//

[Tampa_Gamer]

OK here is the latest compiled list of bugs/solutions/ideals that I attempted to mail to Malfador (of course as others pointed-out, his mailbox is currently full). Posting here for posterity!

QUESTIONS/POSSIBLE BUGS

(1) [AI Strategy] There are currently two "Strategies" files - one in the \Data subdirectory and one in the \AI subdirectory. There are a number of additional strategies in the \Data file. Perhaps it would be easier to use one? Also, the AI will only use the default, even if you place a "[RaceName]_AI_Strategies.txt" in their particular \Pictures\Race subdirectory.

(2) [AI Design/Strategy] The Strategy "Kamikaze Attack" is not used by the design files, they make a call for the strategy "Ram" which is a movement strategy. However, even when I change the design to use "Kamikaze Attack" or other user-defined strategies, the AI always picks "Optimal Firing Range" - are these files broken?


AI RELATED PROBLEMS WITH SOME SUGGESTED FIXES

(1) [AI Intel Projects] The AI needs a file similar to their research file, but for intelligence projects. This file would look to the same AI states and cycle through available AI projects BUT limit the number of simultaneous projects similar to the research file (i.e. 25, 33, 50, 100, etc.). This would result in (A) certain races using neutral, aggressive or defensive intel projects in line with their demeanor and (B) prevent the current problem of AI races having 12 projects at a time running!!!

(2) [AI Planet Types] The current file appears to rely upon a "relative" comparison. I have been trying to tweak this file for the past month with no luck. I realize you left it relative b/c the "Settings" file allows players to tweak the max/min resources for planets (but are people really tweaking this parameter?). However, the AI choices for planets are not as efficient as they could be (and frankly most of us cannot figure out how they make some of their choices). I would suggest fields for "static" comparisons so that if a planet is "Mineral 125%" (regardless of other resources) the AI player will logically make it a mineral planet. I think the majority of fans would gladly sacrifice the ability to tweak this particular Settings parameter in return for a much more efficient AI.

(3) [AI Construction Queues] Even if the AI has ample resources available, it does not fill up its construction queues for either planet facilities or vehicle construction - this results in considerable inefficiency. I often use the "Players" options to verify my modified AI files are functioning and for all empires this is true - most of the time they are completely empty. Perhaps when the AI construct files, it only executes a set number of entries at a time for its empire?

(4) [AI Diplomacy] Add a short distinct .wav file that plays when the button is pressed on the log file for a message from a particular race. I think this would be fairly easy to implement, but will go a long way to developing distinct personalities among races. You can put a placebo empty .wav file there for now until you have time to expand the music (the modders will fill in the music in no time for you!).

(5) [AI Diplomacy] Should be a penalty for asking for a treaty every turn. I know the xenophobic races have this built in, but even the Eee should be pissed-off if you ask for a treaty every turn for 20 turns!

(6) [AI Diplomacy] Players can promise to trade xx resources with a race, but actually not have that amount available to transfer when the turn executes. The race currently makes a decision based on the amount promised, not amount the will actually receive.

(7) [AI Diplomacy] Players should be penalized for ignoring any message (even if it is a general message, players should have to send a general message back). This would make diplomacy better.

(8) [AI Diplomacy] If I accept to break a treaty or declare war, have it automatically happen.

(9) [AI Diplomacy] If I promise to support in war, the AI should at least take a look and see if I have had a battle with the target race in xx # turns.

(10) [AI .emp Files Missing] The Last patch did not cure the problem of several .emp files missing for 8-10 of the races - I can provide list if needed.

(11) [AI Fleets] Non-direct combatant mine-sweepers, transports, colonizers, boarding ships, troop transports, etc. do not appear to be joining fleets for protection. Could there be a toggle or flag field in the design file to indicate whether a design type should seek a fleet? - however, I suppose this might confuse the ministers. . .

(12) [AI Fleets/Design] Since the design types for the AI are rather strict, we need one additional - call it "Support Ship" this class would always be assigned to a fleet (perhaps limit # in the fleet) and would contain supplies, solar collectors, repair facilities, quantum reactor, etc. - More in line with what human players do.

(13) [AI Design] The AI appears to make a new design for Attack Ships, Satellites, Defense Ships and Weapon Platforms just about every turn (for some races - I have not isolated why yet). This in turn leads them to run out of design names very quickly (as well as taking up processing time). Also, when design names run out, they stop making designs is this the intended result or perhaps they could call them I, II, II, etc. with each successive loop back to the beginning of the file.

(14) [AI Design] There is no "defense ship" design in the AI even though there are calls for it in the construction ques. I made a design nonetheless (AA and repair), so its not a big deal to me personally.

(15) [AI Design] If the AI places larger mounts in a design and still has enough space for normal mounts, it will not "flip" back to normal mounts to fill the extra space.

(16) [AI Design] Design files are still using the old ability name for "Combat to Hit" modifications. A search and replace needs to be done on all the files to replace them with the new ability names.

(17) [AI Design/Construction] AI should re-evaluate xx number of years whether to (i) retrofit ship to newest design type, (ii) auto-upgrade facilities and (iii) re-evaluate planet type and production after significant amount of time passed to make sure still efficient.

(18) [AI Pathfinding] When the AI encounters a blacked path (e.g. non-combat ship entering warp pint with enemy sats) it will use all remaining points going back-and-forth between two points next to it.

(19) [AI Game] The AI does not appear to be cloaking its ships/sats when it has the ability. I suggest that the AI always leaves their ships cloaked until such time as they trigger the "low supplies" flag- at that point they can be turned over to the Supplies Minister for resupply.

(20) [AI Strategies] Should be a "Target Priority" for Weapons Platforms - this would solve the problems of (A) ships killing planets prior to landing troops and (B) ships killing weapon platforms and population (i.e. planet priority) while being bLasted by a defense base.


BUGS

(1) [Game Settings] Finite resource game - planets still producing after countdown to 0k.

(2) [Game] Resupply should occur after (A) entering sector and (B) deducting cost to move into sector.

(3) [Game] Appears to be a memory leak either upon executing turn or during one of the AI race turns.

(4) [Game] If a planet is rioting, resupply and spaceport facilities (system modifications) still function - should this be? If so, could you provide an option in the set-up to have these non-functional during a riot?

(5) [Game] If my fleet encounters enemy mines in the same sector that I have mines. I get a message that my minefield triggered.

(6) [Game] If a ship is destroyed in a blackhole during a turn, the graphics in the upper left-hand of the screen are corrupted (I have a 19inch monitor with resolution at 1078).

(7) [Tactical Combat] I can see enemy mines during combat even if I do not have the proper sensors.

(8) [Tactical Combat] If a ship uses a "Boarding Attack" during a turn, all of the components are used in the attack and destroyed this is fine assuming the multiple components gives them additional % success - is this the case? Please clarify in the description. Thanks.


WISHLIST

(1) [Game Setting] Ability to "purchase" via points certain techs for starting. This would simplify creating races with say Intel or Stealthiness to start (like the Darloks) instead of creating "modified components" around it. B/T/W - I did make a "Stealthy" racial trait with earlier cloaking technology if you want to include it.

(2) [Game Setting] In the "Settings.txt" file - add a line item for how many organics per population/per turn to deduct from storage or production. This would end a long debate and allow players to actually think about building organic extraction facilities again.

(3) [Game Setting] In the "Settings.txt" file - add a separate user-defined maintenance % for each of the following (similar to what we now have for ships): fighters, troops, sats, weapons and facilities. By letting everyone tweak their own maintenance % - it would end the long debate on this subject.

(4) [Game Setting] Option to limit effect of weapons fire to maximum of one weapon/one kill.

(5) [Game Setting] Max. amount of mines and sats per warp point/per race or maybe two restrictions - one for human players, another for AI players.

(6) [Game Sounds] Separate volume controls for music and sounds (many players like their sounds high, but music low in background)

(7) [Abilities] Need abilities added similar to "Combat Modifier - System", but limited to Sector or Fleet (this would allow a lot more facilities/components variety - say command ships)

(8) [Abilities] Please put a subroutine in so components can use the point generation abilities (i.e. research and intelligence).

(9) [Game] Provide a way to toggle a planet so that it would not show-up in the "Planet" list of production queues (this would be helpful for small planets which get maxed-out early and really are not touched for the rest of the game except for auto-upgrades)

(10) [Tactical Combat] Combat results should list out units deployed/destroyed in combat.

(11) [Tactical Combat] Add a .wav file for when (A) a shield takes a hit and (B) a ship moves in tactical combat. You can put placebo empty .wav files there for now until you have time to expand the sounds (the modders will fill in the sounds in no time for you!)

(12) [Tactical Combat] Chance to discover tech when taking a planet over by troops (or alternatively, by scrapping unknown facilities on such planet)

(13) [Tactical Combat] I have been working on a solution to what I think is a major hurdle for sats and WPs - their inability to fire first when ships come into weapons range. To solve this I added the "Point - Defense" ability to a DUC II while leaving the "Target Type" the same to expirement. Theoretically, the automatic response turrets (as I call them) should fire when ships move into weapons range. They do for fighters (as they are supposed to), they cannot fire at seekers (as they are supposed to) and if unfired in a turn, they can still be manually fired (as they are supposed to) but unfortunately they do not automatically fire at ships. My theory is that the ships movement subroutine does not have the same "check" for response fire that seeker and fighter movement has. Would it be possible to add a line of code to the ship movement subroutine similar to the one already there for seeker and fighter movement (if my theory is correct). This would then provide the capability of making sats/wps (or ships) that automatically fire when a ship or fighter moves into weapons range (similar to MOO2).

(14) [Intel Ops] Ability to target intel ops on specific Groups of facilities (already have Groups based on group names in facility.txt file)

(15) [SE5 Game Graphics] Add 3-5 additional pics for each hull size - similar to in MOO2 where you could go sideways for different graphics of same hull size and up/down for different hull size (you can put placebos in for now all based on same pic, but for those that want more variety can modify their own). This would allow for more variety between support/attack ships of the same size

(16) [SE5 Ground Combat] Expand ground combat so that it is similar to space (each unit would be a battalion/division) - I forwarded an extensive e-mail earlier and there are several other earlier Posts about this on the Shrapnel Board - I have also heard many beta testers discuss this)

(17) [SE5 Tactical Combat] Allow different ship sizes (currently all are 1x1 square) similar to Armies of Armageddon where there could be 1x2, 2x2, 3x1 and 3x2 units (planets would still be larger than ships). This would allow the budding artists to take advantage of the larger canvas area and those if us with 19" monitors won't have to squint as much - and also provide some disparity between and escort and a baseship.

(18) [SE5 Tactical Combat] Initiative-based dependent on hull size, engines and experience and possible special components (similar to MOO2).

[Mephisto]

Wau! Call me a supporter, Tamap_Gamer.
BTW maybe I have the solution for your bug (3): I encountered the same problem with the AI not filling up its queues even so resources are available. I watched other AI races and found that they had storage facilities. Try to build some for your AI race and production should go up like a rocket (it did for the EA). Please confirm if this was of any use for you.

[SunDevil]

That is one hell of a list. Great job.

[HAL]

I started a separate thread before I saw this message, but with respect to (1) of the list. Has anyone tried removing all of the default AI files to see if the race specific files would then be used? I figure there is a chance that the logic in the game is reversed and that the default files are preventing the race specific files from being used. I can try it tonight, but figured some enterprising person could try it.

------------------
I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that.

[Tampa_Gamer]

Mephisto:

Actually I have been comparing construction queues for all the races (especially the EA) and the Darlok using the "Players" option to look at them every 5-10 turns (quite time consuming) during my testing phases. At first that is what I thought the problem was (and I did correct the severe resource storage problem), but even the EA (ver 1.51)will have several turns when they don't build anything (even facilities on newly colonized planets!!) - all races are doing this. I am working with some experimental files now b/c I think the problem is related to how many construction "calls" it will review each turn.


[This message has been edited by Tampa_Gamer (edited 05 January 2001).]

[apache]

I agree with that big list completely. However, on point 13 about point defense satellites, I don't think the weapons should get these abilities, I think the satellites should have this ability by default for every weapon they can mount.
I also don't think sats get a to-hit defense bonus (correct me if I'm wrong), and they definitely should, since they are much smaller than escorts. Same thing with mines in tactical combat. First of all, they, in most cases, should be invisible to the other side, but secondly, even if they are seen, they should have a huge to-hit defense bonus.

[Snap Spelljammer]

Maybe the best idea for the auto-firing on sats etc is a "Small Targeting Computer" component that, when added to the unit, will automatically fire on ships, etc when they get in range.

[Puke]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snap Spelljammer:
Maybe the best idea for the auto-firing on sats etc is a "Small Targeting Computer" component that, when added to the unit, will automatically fire on ships, etc when they get in range.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

interesting, but it would more likely have to be a part of a component-modifying-mount. for example, a tracking mount. I dont think you can design one component that will directly modify the behavior of another component or class of components.

[Trachmyr]

A few additions to the wish list...

"Min Weight" & "Max Weight" fields in componets.txt so we can create items only for certain classes of vehicles.

Add a Requirement field to componets.txt that would make a componet need another componet to be valid

A new "Supplies Drained" field for componets that use supplies at the beggining of every turn (and are damaged if not available)

New cloaking abilites... "Negates Cloak", which limits cloaking in a TYPE to a certain LEVEL... also "Cloak Bonous" which adds a NUMBER OF LEVELS to a cloaking TYPE (this would not be 'stackable')

Make the REQUIREMENTS section in vehiclesize.txt work... including custom Groups

Seperate planetary Shipyard facilities from ship-based Shipyards, and put in an ability that would require repairing/building to be only possible a planet shipyards

Add a population componet that can only store population but allows it to function as if on a planet (prod. bonous, growth, etc.)

An Armor.txt file so that you can group weapons into diffrent damage classes, and allow diffrent armor to defend against diffrent weapon type, well... diffrently
(i.e., "Laminate" armor protects at 200% vs. "Explosive" weapons, thus all damage would be halved until the armor is deystroyed)


Lastly, A BIG WISH... ENERGY
&gt;&gt;&gt; It would work like supplies (and likewise require abilities to USE/DRAIN/STORE and GENERATE Energy.)
It would need to be displayed in the design screen and the general info on a ship... next to supplies.

This would allow some more interesting designs as you would need to consider another required 'ingrediant', and pull people away from the constant power-monger ship designs. It would also be nice if a on/off toggle for shields was included, like cloaks.

A final note: Energy weapons would drain ENERGY only in combat, and be per shot used... While projectile/seekers would drain supplies per shot (a lot for seekers)
Thus running low or out of either would be disasterous in combat as you could no longer use those weapons.

Well that's my 2 cents....


[This message has been edited by Trachmyr (edited 07 January 2001).]

[TimMcBride]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tenryu:
I would like to add at least one more request to all the others that I think would solve a lot of our 'balance' problems.

Could we (please), be allowed to set the maintenance cost,(in resources), to whatever percent of the base construction cost FOR EVERY INDIVIDUAL ITEM; Vehicles, Units, Facilities, Components, and Component Enhancements?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Does this ability do it? Just change to postive to increase maintence:

Ability 2 Type := Modified Maintenance Cost
Ability 2 Descr := Reduced wear and tear allow for a decrease in maintenance cost of 15%.
Ability 2 Val 1 := -15
Ability 2 Val 2 := 0

I realize it isn't exactly what you want but it would work.



[This message has been edited by TimMcBride (edited 07 January 2001).]

[Grognard]

I am very tired of all the bugs found while playing. Any detailed bug list would take six hours to type up. Not gonna do it.

A quick one minute spiel:
While testing the effects of emissive armor, the simulator yielded different results on auto- and manual-combat. Now that qualifies as a great simulator.
Why don't these thousands of enemy aircraft carriers contain aircraft?
Why does the AI move ships in ones and twos, when a fleet would provide better mutual protection?

One minute is up.

The state of the game. Currently SE4 is only a multiplayer game with zero AI opponents.

Hopefully you beta-testers can fix it,
Grognard

[nmoppa]

I'm not sure if this is true, but can you actually RETREAT from a system after you find out chances are overwhelming against you to win a battle? I don't mind retreating would cost something, but in WHAT war ever it has not occurred troops had to retreat to avoid total destruction? RETREAT would therefor be a good addition.

------------------
MAYBE THIS IS A GOOD DAY TO DIE &lt;Worf facing another critical fight&gt;

[Tenryu]

I would like to add at least one more request to all the others that I think would solve a lot of our 'balance' problems.

Could we (please), be allowed to set the maintenance cost,(in resources), to whatever percent of the base construction cost FOR EVERY INDIVIDUAL ITEM; Vehicles, Units, Facilities, Components, and Component Enhancements?

I think we could really refine a lot of the 'economics' stuff with that addition.
We could design somethings god-aweful expensive to build but cheap to maintain, others cheap to build but a bear to maintain.

For the total maintenance cost of an item, the program would sum the cost of all its parts.

I don't like to complain, the game is really pretty damn good as it is, but the current maintenance cost function, everything costs X % or Nothing, is really limiting some things I would like to customize.

The 'Economy' in the game is sorta based on the Resource gathering rate, One time resource costs (build costs), and Ongoing resource costs(maintenance costs). We have pretty good control over the first two factors, and very little over the Last. I'm asking for more control there.
I'll shutup now.

[This message has been edited by Tenryu (edited 07 January 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Tenryu (edited 07 January 2001).]

[Tenryu]

Thanks Tim,
But I tryed exactly that with the Rock Colony component. I set the maintenance bonus to -50 %, called it a Cheap Rock Colony, then made another component the same except it was +50 % cost, I called it Expensive.

Then I went into the game and tested by building one of each of three colony ships with identical components except one had a normal Rock Colony, one the Cheap one, and one the Expensive one. Guess what?

The maintenance cost was the same for all.

It seems that command string only works for ship hulls. I tryed it on fighters too. Wanted to see if by giving them a maintenance penalty if I could get the little buggers to have an upkeep cost.

Nope'rs there too. Haven't bothered to check facilities, figure even if it works there we really need it on components. Having a general ability like they do for ships is ok, I guess, but if we could 'stick' a percentage maintenence cost, reduction or penalty, on all components we could solve a lot of our problems and have a lot of fun making cool components.
Thanks for the suggestion though.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TimMcBride:
Does this ability do it? Just change to postive to increase maintence:

Ability 2 Type := Modified Maintenance Cost
Ability 2 Descr := Reduced wear and tear allow for a decrease in maintenance cost of 15%.
Ability 2 Val 1 := -15
Ability 2 Val 2 := 0

I realize it isn't exactly what you want but it would work.

[This message has been edited by TimMcBride (edited 07 January 2001).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



[This message has been edited by Tenryu (edited 08 January 2001).]

[evan42]

I also have a very small change that I think should be added.
It has nothing to do with the game balance or anything like that.
Currently, when I want to trasfer cargo between ships or planets, there are only 3 types, transfer 1 per click, 5 per click,or all at once.
Please add more steps besides these 3. Right now, it's just too tedious and too many clicks just to complete a very simple task.
It would be nice to have 10, 50, 100, 500, and 1000.
Maybe if I hold down the shift key, for example, the increment will be 10x the ammount selected, and holding down the ctrl key will be 100x the selected amount.
Or simply more buttons on the right.

[Trachmyr]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tenryu:
It seems that command string only works for ship hulls. I tryed it on fighters too. Wanted to see if by giving them a maintenance penalty if I could get the little buggers to have an upkeep cost.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, actually it does work w/ componets... I have a working ENGINEERING componet I'll be adding to a mod (It reduces maintainace and allows some repair)... However, it is important to note that the modifiers are cummalitive... thus if you put this componet (-35%) on a Base (-50%), maintainence is only 15%!

I'm not sure what you did, but I'd suggest you take a look at your file and make sure there was no problem (off hand, make sure you added 1 to the number of abilities and properly numbered the ability added)

[This message has been edited by Trachmyr (edited 08 January 2001).]

[Tenryu]

Hmmm. I will check it again. I hope it works.Thanks

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trachmyr:
No, actually it does work w/ componets... I have a working ENGINEERING componet I'll be adding to a mod (It reduces maintainace and allows some repair)... However, it is important to note that the modifiers are cummalitive... thus if you put this componet (-35%) on a Base (-50%), maintainence is only 15%!

I'm not sure what you did, but I'd suggest you take a look at your file and make sure there was no problem (off hand, make sure you added 1 to the number of abilities and properly numbered the ability added)

[This message has been edited by Trachmyr (edited 08 January 2001).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Grognard]

Change the "Retrofit" button into a "Refit" button.

Retro- means backward, so retrofit would be a backward move in technology. For a long time, I could not upgrade my ships because I wanted to use new technology rather than old tech.

Grognard

[Tampa_Gamer]

One correction:

(1) [AI Design] Contrary to what I posted I below, the AI does seem to be looping back to the beginning of the design name file and attaching a roman numeral for each successive loop (but it is still creating designs too often.

Several additions:

(1) [AI Retrofit] If designs are the same and the "Retrofit Minister" is ordered to upgrade, the ship is caught in a loop until there actually is a "real" design change. I do not think the AI is using this ship while it is under the control of the "Retrofit Minister"

(2) [Game Play] The game is not tracking statistics for Satellites and Weapon Platform designs in terms of tonnage destroyed.

(3) [Game Play] Mines, Sats and Fighters (perhaps all units) destroyed while "Cargo" on a planet or ship are listed as still "in service." This creates a problem for the AI and its construction queue b/c it thinks they already have xx amount in service when they really don't.

[Mephisto]

To (1) But even with roman numeral they are to short as the AI stop with X or so.

To (2) Sure about that? Could be armed with missiles...

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tampa_Gamer:
One correction:

(1) [AI Design] Contrary to what I posted I below, the AI does seem to be looping back to the beginning of the design name file and attaching a roman numeral for each successive loop (but it is still creating designs too often.

(2) [Game Play] The game is not tracking statistics for Satellites and Weapon Platform designs in terms of tonnage destroyed.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Tampa_Gamer]

Yes, they were armed with missiles. Is this a known bug, the non-reporting of missile kills?

[WhiteHojo]

In the Wish List mode:

1) don't know the exact term of what I want it to do, but when selecting items w/a mouse make the mouse button able to do a repeat click type thing w/o having to single click on say, resources 10 times to give 10,000 resources as a gift/trade. Is annoying and loud (computer is in the bedroom and the sleeping wife is not to be desturbed)

2) enable the use of those new mouses (mice?) that have a scroll cababilitie w/the thumb wheel.

3) ability to sort planets in ALL fields either by size or alphabetical. Now in the "send colony ship to colonize" list there is no way to sort the planets except by size (the default I believe) - a major pain after you discover lots of planets/systems.

4) ability to view system maps in the diplomacy screen - would make tradin of planets/systems & demands involving same much easier to deal with.

5) When you click on a scroll bar on a large list, the list jumps to where on the bar you have clicked - change that to a "page down" ability when clickin on the bar.

That's it for now - will be back w/more (probl'y)

------------------
Character is best defined as that which you do when you believe nobody is watching.

[Taqwus]

Misc items, in no particular order. Argh, re-typing/thinking due to a Nutscrape crash at end of Last attempt. Blargh. Mostly interface foo.

1. Emergency build should take priority over non-emergency build. Items in progress should take priority over items not yet started. Perhaps take away slow period, and instead penalize w/ inefficiency (e.g. Fast =&gt; 3x cost for 2x speed, Very Fast =&gt; 6x cost for 3x speed).

2. Oversight checking -- ability to identify
a) Idle construction queues.
b) Systems with wasted production (has production facilities, but no space port and it's needed).
c) Undefended planets, systems, perhaps warp points (defended = at least one damaging weapon).
d) Multi-item queues with Repeat Build on.

3. Option for upgrades to be added to the BEGINNING of a queue instead of the end.

4. Option for auto-launch in the case of full cargo space (in order of fighters, satellites, mines, weapon platforms (jettison)) or, alternately, auto-pause.

5. 'One Turn's Worth' should be a special qty, to be updated as production increases/decreases (e-build, happiness, population, system computers, etc).

6. Option for naming ships upon production (i.e. dialog popup). Merely for flavor, because going back and renaming gets tedious.

7. Production/upgrade Messages could add info on queue status -- e.g. "Facility constructed [5 left in queue]", "Unit produced [1 left in queue, repeat build]", "Ship built [Queue empty]". Merely a time-saver.

8. More info before choosing strat/tact -- namely, ship classes, and cargo.

9. [MEGA-HACK] Multiple ship yards allowed to pool (perhaps inefficiently) labor on same queue. Used for building expensive items like starbases, stellar manip ships etc. Low priority.

10. Systems gained via a surrender should be automatically claimed.

------------------
-- The thing that goes bump in the night

[Taqwus]

Volume II:

11. Perhaps a tac-combat toggle to highlight all squares a selected unit/ship could reach in one turn of movement. For the lazy. ;-)

12. Re-using a race gives misleading info in 'Tech Used in Our Ships' since it apparently is based on designs, not ships. Should be changed or re-named.

13. Perhaps hull-based abilities, like non-warp capable, low maintenance, reduced refit cost, weak innate cloaking, etc. In case somebody wants to make parallel hull lines (modular ships, in-system ships, etc).

14. A new ability should be added -- Stellar Bonus Movement, so Solar Sails actually need stars to function.

15. Do all players who 'see' a system get Messages relating to events there (e.g. battles, colonization)? They should, if only coarse ones (e.g. no detailed damage report for battles they didn't participate in).

16. Master Computers, perhaps, should give Psychic Cloaking -- since there are no crew minds to detect. Cloaking/sensors deserve a reworking, anyway; active/passive differentiation etc.

17. Perhaps a ship with no Master Computer and no Life Support should become an unowned derelict, since nobody's left. Repair it and bring it to your nearest shipyard to get some tech, or bring a mobile shipyard and analyze it there.

Related, perhaps an option to Abandon a Ship (if another of your, or an allied, ship is in the same sector), in case you have an immobilized ship, don't expect to be able to repair it soon, and don't want to pay the maintenance cost -- the abandoned ship becomes a crewless derelict.

18. Perhaps Quantum Reactors should also get the Self-Destruct ability.

19. Probably silly idea -- Armor that absorbs energy, up to a limit ala Emissive, and converts it into Supply.

20. An option to skip Minister-controlled ships, same way we skip fleets, damaged ships, etc.

21. Greater Minister configurability, e.g. ability to tweak colonization priorities, ability to specify minefield size and priorities (warp points, colonized planets, uncolonized planets, stars, random space), and so forth.

That's enough for now.

------------------
-- The thing that goes bump in the night

[Tampa_Gamer]

Taqwus, some good ideals there. I assume you e-mailed this to MM?

[Taqwus]

Tampa:

Will do so.

------------------
-- The thing that goes bump in the night

[General Hawkwing]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Grognard:
Change the "Retrofit" button into a "Refit" button.

Retro- means backward, so retrofit would be a backward move in technology. For a long time, I could not upgrade my ships because I wanted to use new technology rather than old tech.

Grognard<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


The dictionary defines retrofit has modifying an item (car, jet, factory) with parts not available when originally constructed.

[Aloid]

This idea was posted a while ago, and I've lost track if it's in the works with MM.

We really need a way to allocate a percentage of avaiable resources to ministers for production. As it is now, my ministers will spend everything I have to upgrade facilities, leaving nothing for me to manually build (fleets, etc.), or for emergencies.

Aloid

[Jubala]

In the various screens for planetinfo it'd be great if I could sort them by type, ie rock, ice or gas. Not possible at the moment. I also want a function where I can exclude all planets in systems not claimed by and add a level between claimed and not claimed called "interested in" (or something better) so the colonization screen isn't so cluttered with planets on the other side of the galaxy. I want to filter out planets in systems I am not interested or have marked as avoid for my ships. If the AI could somehow do this as well and be told not to send colonyships into systems hevaily defended by enemies (me) it's ecenomy wouldn't be overly burdened with building a bunch of colony ships that will only get killed. The AI would first look in all the systems it consider safe and see if there are any empty planets it can colonize not already having a colonyship on the way. If no build no ship, if yes, build ship.

But that means the AI would first have to be coded to understand safe and unsafe....

[warp nine]

Wishlist (let me know what u think)

More complex, active populations:
Give each planet population abilities in different areas that can improve as they learn from having facilities on the planet. Populations would gain Science ability from Research Centers, Engineering ability from Space Yards, Worker abilities (Miner, Farmer, Refiner) from the production facilities, etc. Their best abilities would determine their Occupation. A player could, for example, select the best Scientists to populate a new Research Compound.

Same for Crews: Give the Crew Quarters or Bridge component an ability to hold a dozen or so population members, then the player could handpick crews from different Occupations to pilot the ship. The crew members would each chip in their unique abilities as bonuses to combat, ship repair, whatever.

[Puke]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by warp nine:
Wishlist (let me know what u think)

More complex, active populations<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


to add on that, how about native populations (a-la VGA Planets). neutrals are all well and good, but what if 1 out of 5 planets had a boatload of natives on it (that never developed tech or facilities of their own untill conqured)? it would make planets far more useable, but say they get production negatives because their just dumb natives, or they have harsh happyness problems. again, it would be cool if the racial percentile bonuses of the majority race went with the planet, rather than those of the owning race. it would give alot more potential to this idea.

[Jubala]

I raised the idea of natives like in VGAP some time ago but nobody swallowed the bait. Not sure how useful or fun they'd be in SE4 at the moment though. If nothing drastic is changed in the way population work in the game they'd just be easy targets to flesh out your workpool and get pop that breathes another atmosphere. Even easier pushovers then neutrals. Doesn't add much imo.

However, it would be fun if how you treat them somehow affects your own populations views on you and how other empires view you based on happines type and demeanor. Do just ignore them, protect them, incorporate them into your empire, exterminate them (Something for you Atrocity? Spacing some natives just gotta appeal to your darker side. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon12.gif ) and so on. If you establish a protectorate and hinder contact with high tech to try and not do to them what Europe did to the American Indians some races would think highly of you while others would despise you for being weak and soft. If you did introduce high tech and thus contaminated their culture responses would differ. If you simply conquered them outright it would differ again. And your own populations reaction would also differ based on your happines type and demeanor. Would be kind of fun but I don't see it happening anytime soon, if at all.

[Trachmyr]

That would be really cool Puke...

And allow you to determine from the game setup if the computer will randomly generate "Neutral Primatives"... additionally, instead of "Partnership" treaty, it should be "Join Us"... working much like surrender but on positive terms.

[WhiteHojo]

Bug time -

haven't seen this one yet but it's happened to me in 2 games.

early game, captured a neutral race by forcing their surrender. Got their tech - or most of it. I knew for a fact they had ships equiped w/level 2 shields but I only received lvl 1 shield tech. My understanding was you get ALL the tech from the newly surrendered race. Either my assumtion was wrong or it's a bug

------------------
Character is best defined as that which you do when you believe nobody is watching.

[Daynarr]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WhiteHojo:
Bug time -

haven't seen this one yet but it's happened to me in 2 games.

early game, captured a neutral race by forcing their surrender. Got their tech - or most of it. I knew for a fact they had ships equiped w/level 2 shields but I only received lvl 1 shield tech. My understanding was you get ALL the tech from the newly surrendered race. Either my assumtion was wrong or it's a bug

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong assumption, you get only 1 level per tech.

[WhiteHojo]

Under be carefull what you say, Just found another post that references my problem. Seems another poster says you only get 1 tech level in areas you haven't researched yet from races you get to surrender. If this is true - it sucks.

------------------
Character is best defined as that which you do when you believe nobody is watching.

[WhiteHojo]

Daynar's response brings up a problem I seem to be havin w/these forums. It seems that after I view a thread, then go back to the main forum area, then reenter the same thread at a later time no new Messages will be shown unless I hit refresh. Verry annoying. Am I doin something wrong? Could it be some setting on my browser? (I'm using IE)...

[Taqwus]

WhiteHojo:

a) It's probably your browser Cache. I see this on Netscape 4/Linux as well. Apparently the topic URLs are straight HTML instead of cgi-generated at read time, so the browser wouldn't know that the content may have been updated since Last load.

b) Yes. You only gain one level of tech per possible area in which the surrendered race exceeds you. At least with Patch 1, you could get around this with constant surrender demands with simultaneous PPP (so you receive multiple surrenders, each filling in the tech gaps), but Patch 2 fixed this so the new rebel faction (if it didn't join you directly, which also gives no tech IIRC) will not inherit the commlink, and thus won't hear your surrender request (or instead won't answer?).

You can try to scavenge some of the tech from their ships, assuming you didn't destroy them all before forcing surrender. Otherwise, you'll have to research it yourself or trade/steal from somebody else.

------------------
-- The thing that goes bump in the night

[Taqwus]

&lt;Columbo&gt;
Just one more thing:
&lt;/Columbo&gt;

A history log bookmark. Specifically, something that can be used to

a) mark a line in the log, visibly flagging it, and
b) jump to that bookmark immediately. Maybe even via a hotkey from the main window.


Why?

For dealing with the multitude of log events. For instance, in my current very relaxed game (as always. Well, even more so. How much? Hrm. For the first 250 turns or so, or something like that, I didn't build a single armed ship... instead built up infrastructure, researched, explored and colonized. 255-system game, AIs on hard, other options default. My first serious warships will be launched with QE3s, QRs, Solar Sail 3's, max-level weaponry, etc; a few decently-equipped cloaked sensor / boarding / repair ships are already stalking space.), I may deal with numerous log Messages demanding attention, ranging from atmosphere conVersions (part of the development plan) to full cargo space to whatever.

This means that I may potentially do a lot of

a) leaf through history file
b) go to appropriate location or menu, thus closing history file
c) fiddle
d) close location/menu
e) return to history file
f) spend time paging through history file to find out where I left off

The Last bit, paging, gets a bit tedious. (OK. So I'm lazy. But this could be faster.)

------------------
-- The thing that goes bump in the night

[Sinapus]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Taqwus:
3. Option for upgrades to be added to the BEGINNING of a queue instead of the end.

6. Option for naming ships upon production (i.e. dialog popup). Merely for flavor, because going back and renaming gets tedious.

9. [MEGA-HACK] Multiple ship yards allowed to pool (perhaps inefficiently) labor on same queue. Used for building expensive items like starbases, stellar manip ships etc. Low priority.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

3. Yes, that would be very nice. (Especially for planetary space yards, which increase production ability.)

6. Definitely. In SE3 I'd buy a bunch of ships and then go in and rename the hulls as they were being built. You could do it using alt and control keys and move down the ship list, going to a particular ship's status screen and renaming it.

9. Actually, I sent that idea to MM and they kind of shot it down. Same for building multiple facilities in one turn, if you had the resources. *sigh*


------------------
--
"What do -you- want?" "I'd like to live -just- long enough
to be there when they cut off your head and stick it on a
pike as a warning to the next ten generations that some favors
come with too high a price. I would look up into your lifeless
eyes and wave like this..." *waggle* "...can you and your
associates arrange that for me, Mr. Morden?"

[Jubala]

Taqwus, I agree. Very annoying after awhile.

[Atrocities]

The feature I would love to see added to the game is the ability to produce ORBITAL research facilities. The way I invision this would be to have a research comonent that could be placed onto a starbase or battlestation. (the cost of the comonent would be 2000kt) It would add 10% to the systems research efforts.

Additionally, I would love a feature that showed a player what enemy ships are in the area of space they are about to enter. (Kinda like the one used in Rebellion) This would be very helpful in evaluating wheather or not you wanted to engage the enemy, and vis versa.



------------------
"We've made too many compromises already, too many retreats! They invade our space and we fall back -- they assimilate entire worlds and we fall back! Not again! The line must be drawn here -- this far, no further! And I will make them pay for what they've done!" -- Patric Stewart as Captain Picard
UCP/TCO Ship Yards (http://www.angelfire.com/zine/cnchome/Shipsets.html)

[Baron Munchausen]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Atrocities:
The feature I would love to see added to the game is the ability to produce ORBITAL research facilities. The way I invision this would be to have a research comonent that could be placed onto a starbase or battlestation. (the cost of the comonent would be 2000kt) It would add 10% to the systems research efforts.

Additionally, I would love a feature that showed a player what enemy ships are in the area of space they are about to enter. (Kinda like the one used in Rebellion) This would be very helpful in evaluating wheather or not you wanted to engage the enemy, and vis versa.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, you can. "System" abilities for Facilities also work in components! It's the PLANET abilities that don't work in components. So, you can't make a "Research Lab" in a base, but you can make a System Computer Complex in a base! Weird, huh? I haven't done this myself, yet. But I'm playing a new game where I've added some system abilities to some components. I'll be able to test them when I can research the techs.

[Taqwus]

Another possible UI tweak...

In the simulator, Change Cargo section, you can only place 100M at a time before you have to close/re-open the Change Cargo menu (apparently the 'warehouse' only has 100M...)... perhaps, for a short cut, there should be a 'Specify Number' option [which should arguably be in all cargo transfer/launch/etc menus] in addition to the transfer x1, transfer x5 et al.

Considering that I was planning to test how difficult an invasion of, say, an 8000M-person Gas Giant might be, to gauge how many troops I should take in an invasion force, this would have been mind-numbingly dull...

(So I tested w/ 500M people, plus a varying number of Large Troops. Interestingly, mines in storage help the defender, although they don't seem to be lost until all the defending troops were. Didn't test w/ other units involved.)

------------------
-- The thing that goes bump in the night

[Tampa_Gamer]

Here is the latest and greatest post (already e-mailed to Malfador). A number of items changed and have further explanations based on my Last three weeks of editing and playtesting. . . As always, this list should be taken in the light that we are simply trying to help make the greatest space 4x game out there currently, even better.

SE4 VERSION 1.19
LIST UPDATED 01/23/01

QUESTIONS/POSSIBLE BUGS

(1) [AI Strategy] There are currently two "Strategies" files - one in the \Data subdirectory and one in the \AI subdirectory. There are a number of additional strategies in the \Data file. Perhaps it would be easier to use one? Also, the AI will only use the default, even if you place a "[RaceName]_AI_Strategies.txt" in their particular \Pictures\Race subdirectory.

(2) [AI Design/Strategy] The Strategy "Kamikaze Attack" is not used by the design files, they make a call for the strategy "Ram" which is a movement strategy. However, even when I change the design to use "Kamikaze Attack" or other user-defined strategies, the AI always picks "Optimal Firing Range" - are these files broken?

(3) [AI Planet Types File] There seems to be a default Planet_Types "hard-coded" into the game b/c in certain situations (where the AI is temporarily low in one resource) the AI will completely ignore any specific Planet_Type file in their directory and the Default_Planet_Type and instead designate the next XX number of colonies as the type they are low on resources. Can you confirm this?

(4) [General] Not so much a question, but a suggestion to take 5 minutes (prior to the next patch) per AI main file (i.e. construction_vehicles, construction_facilities, planet_types, design_types, strategies) and write in the comments section any additional comments or changes that you made at that Last minute that would make it easier for the modders to interpret how the file reacts with the actual game - nothing fancy (e.g. explain if there are hard-coded planet_types in certain situations the AI will default to, what the interaction is between the \AI and \Data strategies files, etc.). I think this would also help the community pin-point some of the remaining bugs and "features" for you.


AI RELATED PROBLEMS WITH SOME SUGGESTED FIXES

(1) [AI Intel Projects] The AI needs a file similar to their research file, but for intelligence projects. This file would look to the same AI states and cycle through available AI projects BUT limit the number of simultaneous projects similar to the research file (i.e. 25, 33, 50, 100, etc.). This change would result in (a) certain races using neutral, aggressive or defensive intel projects in line with their demeanor and (b) prevent the current problem of AI races having 12 projects at a time running!!! If nothing else, please limit the number of active intel projects to a lower number (say 4-6).

(2) [AI Planet Types] The current file appears to only allow resource values in excess of 101. Is it possible to allow values of less than 101 (say 75)?

(3) [AI Construction Queues] Even if the AI has ample resources available, it does not fill up its construction queues for either planet facilities or vehicle construction - this results in considerable inefficiency. I often use the "Players" options to verify my modified AI files are functioning and for all empires this is true - most of the time they are completely empty. Perhaps when the AI construct files, it only executes a set number of entries at a time for its empire?

(4) [AI Construction Queues] Once the AI uses an "Atmospheric Converter" to change the atmosphere, it is not scrapping it to make room for additional facilities even though the atmosphere is changed.

(5) [AI Diplomacy] Add a short distinct .wav file that plays when the button is pressed on the log file for a message from a particular race. I think this would be fairly easy to implement, but will go a long way to developing distinct personalities among races. You can put a placebo empty .wav file there for now until you have time to expand the music (the modders will fill in the music in no time for you!).

(6) [AI Diplomacy] Should be a penalty for asking for a treaty every turn. I know the xenophobic races have this built in, but even the Eee should be pissed-off if you ask for a treaty every turn for 20 turns!

(7) [AI Diplomacy] Players can promise to trade xx resources with a race, but actually not have that amount available to transfer when the turn executes. The race currently makes a decision based on the amount promised, not amount the will actually receive.

(8) [AI Diplomacy] Players should be penalized for ignoring any message (even if it is a general message, players should have to send a general message back). This would make diplomacy better.

(9) [AI Diplomacy] If I accept to break a treaty or declare war, have it automatically happen.

(10) [AI Diplomacy] If I promise to support in war, the AI should at least take a look and see if I have had a battle with the target race in xx # turns.

(11) [AI .emp Files Missing] The Last patch did not cure the problem of several .emp files missing for 8-10 of the races - I can provide list if needed.

(12) [AI Fleets] Non-direct combatant mine-sweepers, transports, colonizers, boarding ships, troop transports, etc. do not appear to be joining fleets for protection. Could there be a toggle or flag field in the design file to indicate whether a design type should seek a fleet? - however, I suppose this might confuse the ministers. . .

(13) [AI Fleets/Design] Since the design types for the AI are rather strict, we need one additional - call it "Support Ship" this class would always be assigned to a fleet (perhaps limit # in the fleet) and would contain supplies, solar collectors, repair facilities, quantum reactor, etc. - More in line with what human players do.

(14) [AI Design] The AI appears to make a new design for Attack Ships, Satellites, Defense Ships and Weapon Platforms just about every turn (for some races - I have not isolated why yet). This in turn leads them to run out of design names very quickly (as well as taking up processing time). Also, the AI needs to loop the design files more than 5-6 times because when design names run out, they stop making designs (perhaps change to Mk xx system then you could loop it up to 99 times).

(15) [AI Design] Fighter designs seem to always put two of the primary weapon slot on the design (if they fit after engines) regardless of the values placed in the XX to one slot. This makes it very difficult to modify the designs further by adding secondary weapons in small and medium fighters. Is this a bug or lack of knowledge on my part?

(16) [AI Design] There is no "defense ship" design in the AI even though there are calls for it in the construction ques. I made a design nonetheless (AA and repair), so its not a big deal to me personally.

(17) [AI Design] If the AI places larger mounts in a design and still has enough space for normal mounts, it will not "flip" back to normal mounts to fill the extra space.

(18) [AI Design] Design files are still using the old ability name for "Combat to Hit" modifications. A search and replace needs to be done on all the files to replace them with the new ability names.

(19) [AI Design/Construction] AI should re-evaluate xx number of years whether to (i) retrofit ship to newest design type, (ii) auto-upgrade facilities, (iii) re-evaluate planet type and production after significant amount of time passed to make sure still efficient, and (iv) send population to a colony if there current queue completion date is "never".

(20) [AI Game] The AI does not appear to be cloaking its ships/sats when it has the ability. I suggest that the AI always leaves their ships cloaked until such time as they trigger the "low supplies" flag- at that point they can be turned over to the Supplies Minister for resupply.

(21) [AI Game] Tech Lv 3 starts for all the AI pose the following problems: (i) there is no limit to the amount spent on upgrading facilities, thus most AI players spend their first 50 turns upgrading facilities and quickly run out of resources leaving them very vulnerable (suggest putting a cap on % resources spent per turn on facilities), (ii) regardless of what there individual research file says, this type of start gives them all techs even when there designs don't call for them - this throws off the design files b/c they don't think that race is going to get any weapons other than those they research (suggest letting tech 3 start all the way through a particular race's file to establish what techs they start with).

(22) [AI Pathfinding] When the AI encounters a blacked path (e.g. non-combat ship entering warp pint with enemy sats) it will use all remaining points going back-and-forth between two points next to it.

(23) [AI Retrofit] If designs are the same and the "Retrofit Minister" is ordered to upgrade, the ship is caught in a loop until there actually is a "real" design change. I do not think the AI is using this ship while it is under the control of the "Retrofit Minister"

(24) [AI Strategies] Should be a "Target Priority" for Weapons Platforms - this would solve the problems of (A) ships killing planets prior to landing troops and (B) ships killing weapon platforms and population (i.e. planet priority) while being bLasted by a defense base.

(25) [AI Strategies] I think I fixed the problem with the AI not using "Boarding Ships" properly - if you reverse the current order of the movement strategies to first "Optimal Firing Range" then "Capture Enemy Ships" they will not avoid the ship until their shields are down, but instead seek to knock those shields down.


BUGS

(1) [Game Settings] Finite resource game - planets still producing after countdown to 0k.

(2) [Game] Resupply should occur after (A) entering sector and (B) deducting cost to move into sector.

(3) [Game] Appears to be a memory leak either upon executing turn or during one of the AI race turns.

(4) [Game] If a planet is rioting, resupply and spaceport facilities (system modifications) still function - should this be? If so, could you provide an option in the set-up to have these non-functional during a riot?

(5) [Game] If my fleet encounters enemy mines in the same sector that I have mines. I get a message that my minefield triggered.

(6) [Game] If a ship is destroyed in a blackhole during a turn, the graphics in the upper left-hand of the screen are corrupted (I have a 19inch monitor with resolution at 1078).

(7) [Game] Stellar components for storm/nebula/planet creation not using supplies when using components unless in tactical combat.

(8) [Game] The game is not tracking "tonnage destroyed" statistics when a Seeker weapon is used for the "kill".

(9) [Game] Mines, Sats and Fighters (perhaps all units) destroyed while "Cargo" on a planet or ship are listed as still "in service." This creates a problem for the AI and its construction queue b/c it thinks they already have xx amount in service when they really don't.

(10) [Tactical Combat] I can see enemy mines during combat even if I do not have the proper sensors.

(11) [Tactical Combat] If a ship uses a "Boarding Attack" during a turn, all of the components are used in the attack and destroyed this is fine assuming the multiple components gives them additional % success - is this the case? Please clarify in the description. Thanks.


WISHLIST

(1) [Game Setting] Ability to "purchase" via points certain techs for starting. This would simplify creating races with say Intel or Stealthiness to start (like the Darloks) instead of creating "modified components" around it. B/T/W - I did make a "Stealthy" racial trait with earlier cloaking technology if you want to include it.

(2) [Game Setting] In the "Settings.txt" file - add a line item for how many organics per population/per turn to deduct from storage or production. This would end a long debate and allow players to actually think about building organic extraction facilities again.

(3) [Game Setting] In the "Settings.txt" file - add a separate user-defined maintenance % for each of the following (similar to what we now have for ships): fighters, troops, sats, weapons and facilities. By letting everyone tweak their own maintenance % - it would end the long debate on this subject.

(4) [Game Setting] Option to limit effect of weapons fire to maximum of one weapon/one kill.

(5) [Game Setting] Max. amount of mines and sats per warp point/per race or maybe two restrictions - one for human players, another for AI players.

(6) [Game Sounds] Separate volume controls for music and sounds (many players like their sounds high, but music low in background)

(7) [Abilities] Need abilities added similar to "Combat Modifier - System", but limited to Sector or Fleet (this would allow a lot more facilities/components variety - say command ships)

(8) [Abilities] Please let Weapon Platforms have the same range modifications as Bases (this will help the AI and negate some of the "missile dancing" by human players.

(9) [Abilities] Please put a subroutine in so components can use the point generation abilities (i.e. research and intelligence).

(10) [Abilities] Repulsor beams should react automatically similar to PD weapons (to push away boarding ships, fighters, seekers, etc.) this would make it a more viable weapon.

(11) [Game] Provide a way to toggle a planet so that it would not show-up in the "Planet" list of production queues (this would be helpful for small planets which get maxed-out early and really are not touched for the rest of the game except for auto-upgrades)

(12) [Tactical Combat] Combat results should list out units deployed/destroyed in combat.

(13) [Tactical Combat] Add a .wav file for when (A) a shield takes a hit and (B) a ship moves in tactical combat. You can put placebo empty .wav files there for now until you have time to expand the sounds (the modders will fill in the sounds in no time for you!)

(14) [Tactical Combat] Chance to discover tech when taking a planet over by troops (or alternatively, by scrapping unknown facilities on such planet)

(15) [Tactical Combat] I have been working on a solution to what I think is a major hurdle for sats and WPs - their inability to fire first when ships come into weapons range. To solve this I added the "Point - Defense" ability to a DUC II while leaving the "Target Type" the same to expirement. Theoretically, the automatic response turrets (as I call them) should fire when ships move into weapons range. They do for fighters (as they are supposed to), they cannot fire at seekers (as they are supposed to) and if unfired in a turn, they can still be manually fired (as they are supposed to) but unfortunately they do not automatically fire at ships. My theory is that the ships movement subroutine does not have the same "check" for response fire that seeker and fighter movement has. Would it be possible to add a line of code to the ship movement subroutine similar to the one already there for seeker and fighter movement (if my theory is correct). This would then provide the capability of making sats/wps (or ships) that automatically fire when a ship or fighter moves into weapons range (similar to MOO2).

(16) [Intel Ops] Ability to target intel ops on specific Groups of facilities (already have Groups based on group names in facility.txt file)

(17) [SE5 Game Graphics] Add 3-5 additional pics for each hull size - similar to in MOO2 where you could go sideways for different graphics of same hull size and up/down for different hull size (you can put placebos in for now all based on same pic, but for those that want more variety can modify their own). This would allow for more variety between support/attack ships of the same size

(18) [SE5 Ground Combat] Expand ground combat so that it is similar to space (each unit would be a battalion/division) - I forwarded an extensive e-mail earlier and there are several other earlier Posts about this on the Shrapnel Board - I have also heard many beta testers discuss this)

(19) [SE5 Tactical Combat] Allow different ship sizes (currently all are 1x1 square) similar to Armies of Armageddon where there could be 1x2, 2x2, 3x1 and 3x2 units (planets would still be larger than ships). This would allow the budding artists to take advantage of the larger canvas area and those if us with 19" monitors won't have to squint as much - and also provide some disparity between and escort and a baseship.

(20) [SE5 Tactical Combat] Initiative-based dependent on hull size, engines and experience and possible special components (similar to MOO2).


Wow. . .Sorry about the long post

[Daynarr]

Ouch Tampa, that is loooooooooooong post. I think you just broke a record. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon12.gif

[raynor]

Additional bugs/thoughts:

[bug] 1. If you land troops from more than one ship during combat, each landing is treated as a separate battle. But the damage to the planet's defenders isn't carried over.

[idea] 2. In my first game, it seemed as if I was forced to destroy every Last unit before the empire was actually defeated. In my case, there were just a few pesky satellites hiding in the upper left of one sector. I *hope* you aren't expected to also destroy every Last mine as well?!?

[Emperor Zodd]

Tampa_Gamer,your list is excellent!
If you are not a beta tester you should be!

[Tampa_Gamer]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HreDaak:
[QUOTE][b]


AI seems to call ship designing subroutine as soon as it researches a new component that has a higher roman numeral than any of the previous components in it's family. It redesigns all the designs that have this 'new' component. When deciding what components to include in its designs it compares their tech levels. Higher tech level seems to indicate a better component (within family). Also if there are 2 or more AI players using same design name file they share this file. There cant be ships using same design names even if these ships are possessed by two different AI/players.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree, thats how it is supposed to work. But I tested this theory in tech level 3 start (no research) and they were still re-designing their ships in no particular organized manner!!?

[Daynarr]

The AI should check if the new design is the same as the previous one. It already has that 'check the same design' routine in the game for retrofitting ships. It should be EASY to implement that change and it would solve (or reduce) 2 problems:

1) Great amount of designs made by AI that are useless and take memory.

2) It would solve the problem of AI using up all the names for its designs that make AI stop designing ships. (Noticed by Mephisto)

[This message has been edited by Daynarr (edited 24 January 2001).]

[Tampa_Gamer]

Daynarr - good point. Did you forward that suggestion to Aaron? If not, please do.

[HreDaak]

Huh.. that sure is strange http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon9.gif.

Are you sure they were not just designing completely new hull types?. In the Settings.txt file each race has limits on what kind of hull types it can use untill certain amount of turns has passed. If i recall correctly these limits were max 510kt before turn 20 and max 610kt before turn 40. Could this be the reason?

[Tampa_Gamer]

Could be for the other races, but I took out the limits for the Darlok. The game was still re-designing certain designs every turn even though they were based on the "Base Ship" hull. Maybe it is somehow looking at the race preceeding a particular race's turn? I don't know. . .

[Mithra]

Something I noticed (maybe it is old news) is that when I retrofit a ship to eg. a new engine type and in the same turn retrofit it again eg. a cargocontainer, all changes from the first retrofit are automaticaly repaired. (in this case all enginechanges).

[HreDaak]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>

(3) [AI Construction Queues] Even if the AI has ample resources available, it does not fill up its construction queues for either planet facilities or vehicle construction - this results in considerable inefficiency. I often use the "Players" options to verify my modified AI files are functioning and for all empires this is true - most of the time they are completely empty. Perhaps when the AI construct files, it only executes a set number of entries at a time for its empire?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I have seen this too happen in my games. This does not concern all the AI players at the same time but from time to time some of them tend to go into this 'hibernation mode'. They seem to recover from it as soon as some other AI/player starts to destroy their remaining ships/planets. They do research and intelligence projects normally. Maybe this has something to do with different AI states, maybe some of them are not working correctly or something... dunno.
I had this game where Xi'Chung was not doing anything for about 30-40 game turns. It was not building anything (all of its planets were full of buildings).
It had about 30 planets and 5 ships!?!. I checked and rechecked all the text files that should have effect on the Xi'Chung AI but found no errors there. I also checked that it had more than enough resources to build ships/facilities. Upkeep was someting like 5k/1k/1k and it was producing 50k/10k/20k. All the resource storages were also full 170k/90k/90k. Then suddenly when the Sergetti had wiped out couple of its colonies the Xi'Chung AI seemed to recover mysteriously (maybe it's AI state was changed?). It started to crank out ships and has been operating normally after this.

[QUOTE]

(14) [AI Design] The AI appears to make a new design for Attack Ships, Satellites, Defense Ships and Weapon Platforms just about every turn (for some races - I have not isolated why yet). [QUOTE]

AI seems to call ship designing subroutine as soon as it researches a new component that has a higher roman numeral than any of the previous components in it's family. It redesigns all the designs that have this 'new' component. When deciding what components to include in its designs it compares their tech levels. Higher tech level seems to indicate a better component (within family). Also if there are 2 or more AI players using same design name file they share this file. There cant be ships using same design names even if these ships are possessed by two different AI/players.

[Tampa_Gamer]

As always, here is my latest compilation as sent to MM. While part III (wishlist) is generally the same, I have revamped part I (bugs) and part II (AI-related problems).

SE4 VERSION 1.27b
LIST UPDATED 03/02/01

BUGS (NON-AI RELATED)

(1) [Tactical] Upon launch of seeker, no corresponding sounds is playing (capital ship missile, seeking parasite, etc.)

(2) [Game Setup] If a change my mind about the victory condition and choose another one, the old victory condition is not "greyed-out"

(3) [Game] When a ship is auto-laying mines on the left side of your screen and runs out of mines, the graphics in the upper left portion of the screen are corrupted and will not refresh until you minimize/maximize again (I have a 19inch monitor with resolution at 1078).

(4) [Game] When a ship is auto-laying mines and the unit max per sector is reached, the game requires between 8-10 clicks on the message before then warning message disappears.

(5) [Game] Had a game where minelayers destroyed by blackhole were still counted as active units in the design statistics screen.

(6) [Game] The game is not tracking "tonnage destroyed" statistics when a Seeker weapon is used for the "kill" by a unit (WP or Sat).

(7) [Game Setup] Possible bug where first folder in "Races" directory never added (I have never seen the Abbidon (the first folder) selected as a random race.

(8) [Game] When playing long games in one sitting (i.e. without restarting the game) I get "out of memory" errors after 300-400 consecutive turns.


AI RELATED PROBLEMS WITH SOME SUGGESTED FIXES

(1) [AI Construction Queues] When the unit limit is reached, the AI effectively freezes until the production can be filled (i.e. units are destroyed) even if the AI has other projects in the second and third slots which can be worked on.

(2) [AI Intel Projects] The AI is not optimizing its intel. While eventually a file similar to research file would nice to dictate what types of intel projects the race will conduct depending on AI state, for now here are two quick fixes: (A) limit the AI to 6 active projects. This should be enough to have some counter-intel, but also prevent the current problem of the AI having too many projects with 100+ years to complete; and (B) delete the following intel projects (for the AI) that it will never use even if successful (i.e. steal designs, pop. centers, ship construction and fleet location, etc.).

(3) [AI Design] The AI appears to make a new design for Attack Ships, Satellites, Defense Ships and Weapon Platforms just about every turn (for some races - I have not isolated why yet). This in turn leads them to run out of design names very quickly (as well as taking up processing time). Also, the AI needs to loop the design files more than 5-6 times because when design names run out, they stop making designs (perhaps change to Mk xx system then you could loop it up to 99 times).

(4) [AI Game] The AI does not know to "uncloak" its ships with unit launching ability and thus generates errors and effectively freezes when trying to do so.

(4.5) [AI Strategies] This file still does not appear to be used when placed in a race's subfolder.

(5) [AI Game] Tech Lv 3 starts for all the AI pose the following problems: (i) there is no limit to the amount spent on upgrading facilities, thus most AI players spend their first 50 turns upgrading facilities and quickly run out of resources leaving them very vulnerable (suggest putting a cap on % resources spent per turn on facilities), (ii) regardless of what there individual research file says, this type of start gives them all techs even when there designs don't call for them - this throws off the design files b/c they don't think that race is going to get any weapons other than those they research (suggest letting tech 3 start all the way through a particular race's file to establish what techs they start with).

(6) [AI Pathfinding] When the AI encounters a blacked path (e.g. non-combat ship entering warp pint with enemy sats) it will use all remaining points going back-and-forth between two points next to it.

(7) [AI Retrofit] If designs are the same and the "Retrofit Minister" is ordered to upgrade, the ship is caught in a loop until there actually is a "real" design change. I do not think the AI is using this ship while it is under the control of the "Retrofit Minister"

(8) [AI Planet Types] The current file appears to only allow resource values in excess of 101. Is it possible to allow values of less than 101 (say 75)?

(9) [AI Design Files] Bug when using the "Standard Movement" ability where the AI will design a ship with more than max number of engines.

(10) [AI Diplomacy] Add a short distinct .wav file that plays when the button is pressed on the log file for a message from a particular race. I think this would be fairly easy to implement, but will go a long way to developing distinct personalities among races. You can put a placebo empty .wav file there for now until you have time to expand the music (the modders will fill in the music in no time for you!).

(11) [AI Diplomacy] Should be a penalty for asking for a treaty every turn. I know the xenophobic races have this built in, but even the Eee should be pissed-off if you ask for a treaty every turn for 20 turns!

(12) [AI Diplomacy] Players should be penalized for ignoring any message (even if it is a general message, players should have to send a general message back). This would make diplomacy better.

(13) [AI Diplomacy] If I accept to break a treaty or declare war, have it automatically happen.

(14) [AI Diplomacy] If I promise to support in war, the AI should at least take a look and see if I have had a battle with the target race in xx # turns.

(15) [AI Fleets] Non-direct combatant mine-sweepers, transports, colonizers, boarding ships, troop transports, etc. do not appear to be joining fleets for protection. Could there be a toggle or flag field in the design file to indicate whether a design type should seek a fleet?

(16) [AI Fleets/Design] Since the design types for the AI are rather strict, we need one additional - call it "Support Ship" this class would always be assigned to a fleet (perhaps limit # in the fleet) and would contain supplies, solar collectors, repair facilities, quantum reactor, etc. - More in line with what human players do or even better - allow calls in the Construct_Vehicles file based on "Design Name" instead of "Design Type."

(17) [AI Design] Fighter designs seem to always put two of the primary weapon slot on the design (if they fit after engines) regardless of the values placed in the XX to one slot. This makes it very difficult to modify the designs further by adding secondary weapons in small and medium fighters. Is this a bug or lack of knowledge on my part?

(18) [AI Design] There is no "defense ship" design in the AI even though there are calls for it in the construction ques. I made a design nonetheless (AA and repair), so its not a big deal to me personally.

(19) [AI Design] If the AI places larger mounts in a design and still has enough space for normal mounts, it will not "flip" back to normal mounts to fill the extra space.

(20) [AI Strategies] I think I fixed the problem with the AI not using "Boarding Ships" properly - if you reverse the current order of the movement strategies to first "Optimal Firing Range" then "Capture Enemy Ships" they will not avoid the ship until their shields are down, but instead seek to knock those shields down.


WISHLIST

(1) [Game Setting] Ability to "purchase" via points certain techs for starting. This would simplify creating races with say Intel or Stealthiness to start (like the Darloks) instead of creating "modified components" around it. B/T/W - I did make a "Stealthy" racial trait with earlier cloaking technology if you want to include it.

(2) [Game Setting] In the "Settings.txt" file - add a line item for how many organics per population/per turn to deduct from storage or production. This would end a long debate and allow players to actually think about building organic extraction facilities again.

(3) [Game Setting] In the "Settings.txt" file - add a separate user-defined maintenance % for each of the following (similar to what we now have for ships): fighters, troops, sats, weapons and facilities. By letting everyone tweak their own maintenance % - it would end the long debate on this subject.

(4) [Game Setting] Option to limit effect of weapons fire to maximum of one weapon/one kill.

(5) [Game Sounds] Separate volume controls for music and sounds (many players like their sounds high, but music low in background)

(6) [Abilities] Need abilities added similar to "Combat Modifier - System", but limited to Sector or Fleet (this would allow a lot more facilities/components variety - say command ships)

(7) [Abilities] Please let Weapon Platforms have the same range modifications as Bases (this will help the AI and negate some of the "missile dancing" by human players.

(8) [Abilities] Please put a subroutine in so components can use the point generation abilities (i.e. research and intelligence).

(9) [Abilities] Repulsor beams should react automatically similar to PD weapons (to push away boarding ships, fighters, seekers, etc.) this would make it a more viable weapon.

(10) [Game] Provide a way to toggle a planet so that it would not show-up in the "Planet" list of production queues (this would be helpful for small planets which get maxed-out early and really are not touched for the rest of the game except for auto-upgrades)

(11) [Tactical Combat] Combat results should list out units deployed/destroyed in combat.

(12) [Tactical Combat] Add a .wav file for when (A) a shield takes a hit and (B) a ship moves in tactical combat. You can put placebo empty .wav files there for now until you have time to expand the sounds (the modders will fill in the sounds in no time for you!)

(13) [Tactical Combat] Chance to discover tech when taking a planet over by troops (or alternatively, by scrapping unknown facilities on such planet)

(14) [Tactical Combat] I have been working on a solution to what I think is a major hurdle for sats and WPs - their inability to fire first when ships come into weapons range. To solve this I added the "Point - Defense" ability to a DUC II while leaving the "Target Type" the same to expirement. Theoretically, the automatic response turrets (as I call them) should fire when ships move into weapons range. They do for fighters (as they are supposed to), they cannot fire at seekers (as they are supposed to) and if unfired in a turn, they can still be manually fired (as they are supposed to) but unfortunately they do not automatically fire at ships. My theory is that the ships movement subroutine does not have the same "check" for response fire that seeker and fighter movement has. Would it be possible to add a line of code to the ship movement subroutine similar to the one already there for seeker and fighter movement (if my theory is correct). This would then provide the capability of making sats/wps (or ships) that automatically fire when a ship or fighter moves into weapons range (similar to MOO2).

(15) [Intel Ops] Ability to target intel ops on specific Groups of facilities (already have Groups based on group names in facility.txt file)

(16) [SE5 Game Graphics] Add 3-5 additional pics for each hull size - similar to in MOO2 where you could go sideways for different graphics of same hull size and up/down for different hull size (you can put placebos in for now all based on same pic, but for those that want more variety can modify their own). This would allow for more variety between support/attack ships of the same size

(17) [SE5 Ground Combat] Expand ground combat so that it is similar to space (each unit would be a battalion/division) - I forwarded an extensive e-mail earlier and there are several other earlier Posts about this on the Shrapnel Board - I have also heard many beta testers discuss this)

(18) [SE5 Tactical Combat] Allow different ship sizes (currently all are 1x1 square) similar to Armies of Armageddon where there could be 1x2, 2x2, 3x1 and 3x2 units (planets would still be larger than ships). This would allow the budding artists to take advantage of the larger canvas area and those if us with 19" monitors won't have to squint as much - and also provide some disparity between and escort and a baseship.

(19) [SE5 Tactical Combat] Initiative-based dependent on hull size, engines and experience and possible special components (similar to MOO2).

[Tenryu]

Nice list, Tampa.

I might add these to the Wish List:

1) In VehicleSize.txt, please get more of the "Requirement x Type:" things working. I/we could really use the Must Have 'specific component, and the Must Have Exactly, but all look very useful.

2) In Components.txt, add to Target Types; Troops, Mines, Ftr/Sat/Seekers/Mines.

3) In Components.txt, add to Weapon Damage Type; Randon Facility Only.

4) Allow Troops to initiate Boarding Attacks and defend against them. Change the Boarding Parties component to Troop Quarters, count as cargo space, and allow it to hold one Troop unit and launch one for boarding. Normal cargo space can hold troops, just not launch.

1.27b is a real big improvement to what was before! The game's getting better all the time! Thanks MM.

[Sinapus]

I'd like to add weapon mount modifications for seekers to the list. Especially range modification. Last time I tested it, it would fire on targets at longer ranges, but the seekers would vanish at the unmodified range limit.



------------------
--
"What do -you- want?" "I'd like to live -just- long enough to be there when they cut off your head and stick it on a pike as a warning to the next ten generations that some favors come with too high a price. I would look up into your lifeless eyes and wave like this..." *waggle* "...can you and your associates arrange that for me, Mr. Morden?"

[Taqwus]

Some possible additions:

* In general, ministers should check to see whether they're attempting the impossible. Stellar manipulation ships, for instance, shouldn't try unless they have a movement point left.

* The AI probably should place a lower priority on combat techs and a higher priority on infrastructure if the quadrant is big; perhaps somehow influenced by (systems / non-neutral-player).

* Allowing us to re-order fleets might be nice, if it matters. I'm not sure how ordering works right now.

* Consider basing refit cost limits on the *original* cost of the ship, so you can't attain arbitrary ship-building speed with a refit chain.

* Rebalance tech to make some branches meaningful. For instance, if the computer production/research/intel bonuses were cut to +5/10/15% and the mineral scanners still gave +10/20/30%, there'd be a real reason to use the latter -- sacrificing facility space for more bonuses. ISTR that tachyon sensors are also more expensive to get and use, for a similar benefit, than are hyper-optics.

* Possibly allow an option for an increasing disaster frequency over time, or alternately a "no random events for the first X turns" option -- a event early can break an empire, or make one (e.g. spatial anomaly sends a warship to next to an enemy homeworld, who is promptly forced to surrender and yield another colony tech while doubling population, and...).

------------------
-- The thing that goes bump in the night

[Drake]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>2) [Game Setup] If a change my mind about the victory condition and choose another one, the old victory condition is not "greyed-out"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aren't you supposed to be able to select more than one victory condition?

[Tampa_Gamer]

Drake - Yes, you can choose more than one. I was referring to when I choose one, then change my mind and choose two different ones. The original is still lighted, even if I "uncheck" the box. This is a minor menu nit, since it does not effect actualy game play as far as I can tell.

[mac5732]

my wish list would be,
1 AI builds and uses base Ships more
2 AI uses troops and invades planets
3 The introduction of a Warp missle which
would be able to go through worm hole and
attack waiting, ships, sats, and/or mines
before ship goes through
4 Large Sats to have better weapon range
for defense of worm holes or have special
worm hole defense base capable of
attacking any ship coming through
5 AI to use warp weapons to open & close them
if they now do, I haven't seen it yet..
6 Editor to create 1 or more races or at
to change racial traits etc,
7 Pirate and/or Nomad Races
8 More catastrophic causes including a space
invader race that hates everybody, set at
random, and catastrophies to happen more
often when set to high
9 AI to use biological weapons, very seldom
if ever does at present
10 a new race that can live on any planet
no matter what the conditions without
having to research rock, ice, gas, oxygen
etc.and only controlled by AI,
just a few ideas...

[klausD]

My personal wish list

-tactical combat: scrollable combat window
-resource trade - numbers you can type in
-fighters - option of "tactical fighters" only (cannot exist without planetary or carrier support)
-special wormhole engines for fighter units
-special line in facility files: "number of population needed to be operational..."
-drones
-tactical combat: possiblity to set up defensive units manually
-better documentation of units lost, ships lost etc. of own and enemy empires
-cheap general intelligence operations - to have an impression on enemies strengh, log Messages, planet numbers, happiness of population etc.(this is what intelligence today is mainly composed of)

klaus

[DirectorTsaarx]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by klausD:
-resource trade - numbers you can type in
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Along the same lines, either allow numbers you can type in for amount of cargo to transfer or more options (besides 1, 5, or "All") for cargo transfers.

And allow the same thing in construction queues for units. If my carrier can hold 32 fighters, I want to build 32 fighters, not 35 or 40; and I don't want to build 30 fighters, then spend the next two turns building one fighter per turn.

[Miles]

My wish list:

0) (Urgent) The 'Ships/Units' screen needs to have an additional button below the 'Show Fleets' button. The name of this button should be something like: 'Show Orphans'. The meaning of this button would be to show ships that are not currently assigned to a fleet.

By using this new button and the 'Show Fleets' button, you could hide all the unwanted/unneeded information about ships that are in a fleet.

1) (Pleeese?) The 'Ships/Units' screen needs to have an additional button below the 'Show Fleets' button. When you click on this button, you are presented with a drop-down, scrollable, list of 'Design Type's. By using this button, you see just your Carriers, or your 'Pop. Transport's or whatever.

2) (PPPleeeese?) I think we need an additional default 'Design Type'. It is:

Scout
- It will explore.
- Once we have explored to the limit of supply, it will hang out on the border and watch for traffic.
- Would be nice if it would pop in and out of storms and nebulae.
- Will cloak if it can.
- Will not initiate combat, even if it has weapons.

3) (Urgent) The game really REALLY needs to ship with at least 255 names in the systemnames.txt file.

Thanks to MM for the wonderfull game. I am recommending it to all my friends.

Miles

------------------
-=-miles@cc.usu.edu-=-

[Instar]

Hey miles, good idea with the design types. Send it to Aaron's email and I think it has a good chance of being added.

[Suicide Junkie]

My biggest problem has been with repeat building.

1) Make repeat build repeat the LAST item, instead of the first.
This way, when I upgrade my designs, I don't have to cancel a ship in progress, or wait, remember & change the queue on the exact turn it completes. I can also add 'emergency' items to the queue, and after it's done it then drops down to the normal repeat production of defence sats/fighters/mines.

2) When there is not enough space on the planet: DONT WASTE THE UNITS! When the planet runs out of space, the extra units are lost.
INSTEAD, launch any excess units into orbit. They can always be recovered, anyways, and this way, I don't have to worry.
Also, it makes it very easy to build up planetary defences, since you don't have to manually launch every turn.


-----------
As for a wish list, Crossover Techs:
ie. organo-crystalline armor (regen plus shield boost)
Temporal organics, whatever

Totally living ships for organic races: everything grows back if given time.

How to balance it? Hmmm...

[This message has been edited by suicide_junkie (edited 06 March 2001).]

[jowe01]

First big, big thing on my wishlist still is AI strategic behaviour: please alter the hardcoded AI routines in a way that


1. makes the AI follow through on attacks
2. hinders the AI to send single ships/small fleets into areas where they face certain doom. I know, this was supposed to be improved with 1.27, but it still does not work correctly. In my current game the AI still tries to send unguarded colonizers into space guarded by my fleets (it lost about 10 at a single location). Also, it still attacks fleets of 10+ ships with only one or two of its own vessels. The fact that these are regularly destroyed does not change its behaviour.


These two issues are hardcoded and cannot be "modded away". They seriously reduce the fun of the game (at least as far as I am concerned).

[This message has been edited by jowe01 (edited 06 March 2001).]

[SunDevil]

jowe01,

If you look at either the default_ai_settings file or any specific race's ai_settings file you will find two important lines that can help you.

1.Turns to Wait until next attack := 5

This line governs how many turns the ai waits to attack again. Set this number to one for aggressive and warmonger races and for peaceful races set it to 4.

2.Maximum Systems to Defend at a Time := 3

This line governs how many systems will have warships/fleets in them at any time. This number has been played around with some people you can check past Posts for more details. For aggressive/warmonger races set this to five. For peaceful races set it to 3.

With these two lines you can have the ai defend more systems and attack more often. Not a complete hard coded fix, but it will help you in your games for now.

[jowe01]

Thank you , Sun Devil, but I have already extensively played around with these items. By and large, they do not help much. If you reduce the numbers of turns to wait until next attack and increase the number of systems to defend, the AI's attacks often only get more fragmented and have less success chances. What I would like the AI to do is to emulate human behaviour: build up a decent fleet, than attack a system. Follow up on your attack until you (may) face significant resistance. Withdraw behind Last warpoint/to next large & armed planet and dig in. Repeat as necessary/possible.

That kind of behaviour has to be hardcoded.

[Tampa_Gamer]

bump - since I saw the other wish-list compilation thread, I did not want some good ideas on this thread lost too!