Modder brainstorming session [Archive]

Suicide Junkie

May 16th, 2001, 10:12 PM

Throw in some ideas, see what comes out.

- MOO - style deflector shields
Give a shield generator 10 shield pts, 10 crystalline shield boost. Every hit gets -10 damage taken off. (add 10 for each higher tech level) (moo used 1 pt, but this scales it up to match weapon damage)

- Massive engine tech changes:
-prop 1: standard engine I
-prop 2: Fuel-efficient engine I
-prop 3: Gas-guzzler high boost engine I
-prop 4,5,6 lev2 in above.

fuel-efficient engines would be 50% larger, but use 1 supplies per move (vs 10)
gas guzzlers would be 50% larger, give 2 movement points, but use ~30 supplies per move.

[This message has been edited by suicide_junkie (edited 16 May 2001).]

Coal

May 17th, 2001, 12:55 AM

If your going for MOO type shields, how about reflector shields, that bounce some of the energy back at the attacking enemy.

------------------
Rules? What rules?

Suicide Junkie

May 17th, 2001, 12:57 AM

Throw in any ideas you can come up with!

I don't think SE4 has any way to reflect damage, but someone else might come up with something.

evader

May 17th, 2001, 01:03 AM

how about modifying sensors to detect mines

Puke

May 17th, 2001, 01:08 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by evader:
how about modifying sensors to detect mines

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

do-able. there are multiple sensor types available, we could give mines a specific cloaking ability and reserve the others for ships, change gravetic sensors to pick up the mines, and make them useless for ships (i.e. remove gravetic cloaking from cloaking components, or raise it to something over whatever the maximum mine cloak level would be)

how about a mod that fleshes out all the cloaking components to make that more of a game? i guess the AI would have a hard time with it...

Devnullicus

May 17th, 2001, 01:16 AM

SJ:
Can you explain the deflector shield idea a bit more, maybe with a combat example? It's been so long since I've played MOO that I've forgotten. It sounds highly interesting though.

I really like the different engine types idea also. Reminds me a lot of Stars! engines.

------------------
How's my Programming? Call 1-800-DEV-NULL

Suicide Junkie

May 17th, 2001, 01:22 AM

Here we go! Let the ideas flow!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>give mines a specific cloaking ability and reserve the others for ships...the AI would have a hard time with it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So, what kinds of things would each of the other cloak/sensor types do?

Psychic: master computer gives a max level cloak (any crew aboard go into cryo-hibernation for cloak, so they don't spew brainwaves http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif)
- all cloaking devices should have psychic cloak lev 1, so you NEED the computer to hide.
temporal: an all-seeing, but much more expensive tech? How could it be realistically/believably stopped?
active/passive: how about active level "x" requires passive level "x-2" (to detect faint return signals) and/or long range sensor tech? Different cloaks could be stronger VS active or stronger VS passive.

Suicide Junkie

May 17th, 2001, 01:27 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Can you explain the deflector shield idea a bit more, maybe with a combat example? It's been so long since I've played MOO that I've forgotten. It sounds highly interesting though<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I only managed to play a quarter of a game of MOO original, but from what I gathered, the deflector shield reduced damage to your ship by x points per hit.

The crystalline effect will keep your shields always at 10 points, so every hit gets reduced by 10 points of damage!

shields start at 10, you get hit for 30. shields block 10, you take 20. crystalline boosts shields to a max of 10. repeat ad nauseum, or until deflector shield gen is hit http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

in moo: laser hits for (random 1,2,3 damage) 3 damage. Shield subtracts 1, you take 2 damage. repeat http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

[This message has been edited by suicide_junkie (edited 17 May 2001).]

Devnullicus

May 17th, 2001, 01:33 AM

Ah, ok, much like what emissive armor is supposed to be like. Cool idea. Only problem I see is that once you do more than 10 points (or however many the component has), wouldn't the component be destroyed and no longer regenerate?

------------------
How's my Programming? Call 1-800-DEV-NULL

Phoenix-D

May 17th, 2001, 01:39 AM

No, because it's not armor.

Phoenix-D

Suicide Junkie

May 17th, 2001, 01:40 AM

So, how about those cloaks & engine suggestions?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Ah, ok, much like what emissive armor is supposed to be like. Cool idea. Only problem I see is that once you do more than 10 points (or however many the component has), wouldn't the component be destroyed and no longer regenerate<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, but you see, the component is not armor, so it could survive many hits by hiding behind other components!
These things could replace shield generators in a low-tech-feel mod (b5 or similar).

Once the generator is hit, though, it would die like any other shield generator.

[This message has been edited by suicide_junkie (edited 17 May 2001).]

Devnullicus

May 17th, 2001, 01:51 AM

heh. You could actually do little ablative deflector shields. Make them 1kT each. 1 pt shields with 1 pt crystal shield regen. =) Hard to actually take them out. Hard to repair though, too.

------------------
How's my Programming? Call 1-800-DEV-NULL

Suicide Junkie

May 17th, 2001, 01:55 AM

They'd be nasty little buggers if you got 150kT worth on a BC. You'd practically need a WMG to cut through it! http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

Add organic armor, and you're invincible to everything but shard cannons & null-space.

[This message has been edited by suicide_junkie (edited 17 May 2001).]

AJC

May 17th, 2001, 02:03 AM

I like the idea of reflective shields.

I did that very modification to cloaking and sensors. In my tech set Cloaking goes up to level 8 tech. I added tech levels to all sensors to detect the higher level cloaks. Mines had to be modified so that they wouldnt be detected by the new higher level detection abilities of high tech sensors.

Detecting mine fields;
I added up to tech level 12 advanced military science to my game. Hyperoptics at the top level in my game will detect mine fields.

I also went through the AI races and modified the research files so that they will use the higher levels of cloaking and sensors. Although I have never actually determined if the AI uses the top level Hyperoptics to avoid mine fields.
If anyone is interested in seeing the mod I can send you the files.. or post them in them in the mod forum...if asked to.

As for new Ideas -
how about Weapon platform mounts using the same range and damage bonus as the station mounts - But dont include the bonus to hit.

Reduce the amount of population that can be carried in a cargo bay.

Advanced Stellar manipulation components
Smaller, cheaper and maybe self repair. This could Allow individual warships the capability to open and close warp points etc..

Add levels to existing tech to allow for miniturization of components.

Faster missiles

Get aaron to allow towing of ships with tractor beams on the strategic map and tactical combat.....

[This message has been edited by AJC (edited 17 May 2001).]

Devnullicus

May 17th, 2001, 02:04 AM

Yeah, there's the rub, actually. There needs to be a hard limit of how much damage can be deflected. The restriction of One Per Vehicle would actually be appropriate for these. The higher the component level, the more damage it would be able to block, but you would only be able to have one per ship. Otherwise, you'd just be able to make a ship invincible.

Suicide Junkie

May 17th, 2001, 02:13 AM

well, not really invincible.

If you had 500kT of ablative deflectors (1 shield, 1hp each), then:
-16 meson bLasters @ 30 damage reduces shields to 20.
-one meson bLaster cuts down shields, destroys 10 ablatives. Shields rise to 30.
-one meson bLaster cuts down shields
-one meson bLaster kills 30 ablativs, shield rises to 30.
-one meson bLaster cuts down shields.
-etc.

As long as that one bug has been fixed, so the damage getting through the shields must be greater than zero for the crystalline effect to work.

I would still suggest making the deflectors the size of normal shields, so you can add multiple gens, but you can't abuse the ability.
One-per-ship restrictions are good too.

[This message has been edited by suicide_junkie (edited 17 May 2001).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Reduce the amount of population that can be carried in a cargo bay.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Is there a setting in settings.txt for that? I can't remember.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Advanced Stellar manipulation components Smaller, cheaper and maybe self repair. This could Allow individual warships the capability to open and close warp points etc..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>B5 jump drive anybody http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif Actually, for that kind of thing, I took the map editor, and added a "hyperspace" system. for big maps, I link nine or so systems into a square, and the small sector squares of hyperspace map directly to the systems squares on the galaxy map! Add fifty wormholes to connect all the systems to their respective locations in hyperspace, and you've got a B5 universe! Add black hole effects to hyperspace, make it a level 5 nebula, and you get ships drifting off course in hyperspace, getting lost and dying, and no combat allowed.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Add levels to existing tech to allow for miniturization of components.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I like it. I'll have to write a program to read the file, duplicate every component, and reduce the price of the copy while increasing the tech requirements. It'll work great!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Get aaron to allow towing of ships with tractor beams on the strategic map and tactical combat.....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ohh! ohh!
Idea! set tractor beams to allow targetting of friendlies. you can then catapult capture ships into the enemy force, or yank a crippled ship out of the way of enemy fire! (just like the defiant was saved in one episode)

BUT, even better, make a friendly-targeting only weapon that does negative damage to shields only!. You can boost an allied ship's shields, at the expense of your own supplies.

[This message has been edited by suicide_junkie (edited 17 May 2001).]

Marty Ward

May 17th, 2001, 02:24 AM

How about in addition to normal engines, tactical engines that give extra combat moves but less strategic moves and vice versa.

Suicide Junkie

May 17th, 2001, 02:27 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>How about in addition to normal engines, tactical engines that give extra combat moves but less strategic moves and vice versa.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Use the afterburner ability! yes! and perhaps we could give an engine a "-1" afterburner, so it gives 2 movement in strategic, but gives a total of zero in tactical!

Puke

May 17th, 2001, 04:42 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by suicide_junkie:
How about in addition to normal engines, tactical engines that give extra combat moves but less strategic moves and vice versa.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Use the afterburner ability! yes! and perhaps we could give an engine a "-1" afterburner, so it gives 2 movement in strategic, but gives a total of zero in tactical!

wow, that would totally change the game. non-combat ships would be MUCH cheaper comparatively, as they would not need tac engines. so scouts and colony ships and transports would be able to be made for a much lower comparative price, but they would be dead in the water if intercepted. it would also mean that ships would have less capacity for weapons and such, unless the size of engines were reduced or capacity was increased

also, if tac engines and strategic engines both counted against the hull's engine limit, the limit would probably have to be raised. that means ships could either go for a balance, or have an incredible tac movement or an incredible strategic movement. this would be another big game changer, as people would build defensive interceptors to protect planets and long range high speed scouts to scout through systems.... Just like when we thought the U2 and later the SR71 were too high and fast to catch, but they got their clocks cleaned by super-sonic short-range mig interceptors!

I think this change is an excellent idea, and it would make things much harder to take, as local defenses would have higher powered ships than could be sent quickly over long distances.

ofcourse, if i remember, afterburners are a 1-component-per-ship-is-effective, and the ability may not even work on ships. just kicking some ideas about though.

Nitram Draw

May 17th, 2001, 02:07 PM

Nice idea. I think the AI would have a tough time handling it though. I tried a few games with colonize home planet type and atmosphere restrictions, this is as close as you can get to the few and far between colonizable planets now. The AI did not fare so well.
Making colonies more expensive is a good idea, they are basically throwaways as you put it. If you only have 10 each becomes much more valuable. Again, I think the AI would have trouble with fewer colonies and it isn't very efficient in picking colony types but in a game with human opponents it should work real well.
If the number of systems limit is lifted I don't see why most of your ideas cannot be used.

geoschmo

May 17th, 2001, 03:19 PM

Nitpick alert...Nitpick alert...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Puke:
Just like when we thought the U2 and later the SR71 were too high and fast to catch, but they got their clocks cleaned by super-sonic short-range mig interceptors!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry Puke, the SR71 has never been caught by anything, and the U-2 wasn't cought by another aircraft. Gary Powers was shot down when the Soviet Air Defense sent up a BUNCH of surface to air missles. One managed to get close enough that when it exlploded it damaged his plane. (Of course the shotgun approach also knocked out at least one of the MIGS persuing him as well.)

Doesn't affect the point you were making. I just felt like being picky. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon10.gif
Geo

dogscoff

May 17th, 2001, 04:21 PM

>I think the AI would have a >tough time handling it though.

That's what I thought. Economically it wouldn't be much different to the Neutrals, and the slower pace might help to hide some of the AI's research and design eccentricities. I think the main difficulty would be persuading it to defend its colonies adequately.

>This is as close as you can get to the few >and far between colonizable planets now.
...
>If the number of systems limit is lifted I >don't see why most of your ideas cannot be >used.

Number of systems limit? OIC... well I think 255 systems might be enough. After all, if you had (say) 10 players and a few neutrals/ primitives, that's still >25 systems each. Maybe you could have a few colonisable worlds every 4th or 5th system... that would be about a dozen worlds per empire before they had to start squabbling=-)

The map could be implemented by adjusting the systmtypes.txt file couldn't it? If not, maybe the map editor...

------------------
"Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
"Uh, I think so, Brain, but balancing a family and a career ... oooh, it's all too much for me. "

Nitram Draw

May 17th, 2001, 05:02 PM

I was thinking if the system limit was increased you could really get that "are we alone" feeling. Even with 255 systems I generally run into someone within 30-60 turns. What if you went 100's of turns before finding another race?

capnq

May 17th, 2001, 05:03 PM

Like a lot of people, I dislike the way Phased Shields I are so much less effective than normal Shields V. Most of the ideas I've seen to fix this seem to involve rearranging the progression to make them alternate, e.g. normal I, phased I, normal II, phased II, but I don't like that, either. It seems to me that phased should be a major breakthrough that make normal shields obsolete.

I haven't tested this idea yet, but I think a better fix would be to make phased I equivalent to normal V, then increase from there. This has the advantage that you don't have to rewrite the AI research files for a new progression.

My current idea for the progression would be something like this:

Level shield pts. minerals radioactives
normal V 300 500 0 (no change)
phased I 300 450 50
phased II 375 500 100
phased III 450 550 150
phased IV 525 600 200
phased V 600 650 250

Do these numbers look reasonable?

------------------
Cap'n Q

The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the
human mind to correlate all of its contents. We live on a placid
island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was
not meant that we should go far. -- HP Lovecraft

Suicide Junkie

May 17th, 2001, 05:13 PM

For the solar sail/ no movement for ships problem, all we have to do is add a "1-per ship" really efficient engine.
It would give 1mp, use 1 supply point.

so it would be a navigational thruster, used to orient the spacecraft, like a rudder on a sailboat! Even the cheapest solar panel would give you unlimited range!

Nitram Draw

May 17th, 2001, 05:16 PM

I'm the opposite.
I would like to see even more differances in the regular and phased shields. I would like to see the ability "skips phased shields" added. Then you could create phased skipping weapons too, give a use for the Menson bLaster maybe. You would have to really know the enemy then!
IIRC there is a bug when shield type are mixed so that would have to be worked out to but then you could have 10 levels of each shield and additional variety. It would probably require a lot of AI adjustment though http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon9.gif.

Hydraa

May 17th, 2001, 05:21 PM

To give a different opinion on the shield/phased shield debate.

Phased shields are a enhanced technology that takes time to ramp up. IT may do more than it's technolgy that it replaces but it may take additinal time to ramp up

Computer moniters - we have crt and lcd screens (taking it ot basics).

We have overlap of the two technologies.

LCD starts out displaying less than a same era crt screen even though it has a smaller foot print. As LCD tech improves you get more colors and resolution to bring it up to or surpass the CRT maintaining the smaller footprint that it has.

Meanwhild LCD is more expensive than CRT for the same size.

My opinion is that the larger problem is in the way the ai and the upgrade process thinks that phased shields I are better then Shield V when in only a few case that is so.

Suicide Junkie

May 17th, 2001, 05:53 PM

As for shield tech, I was thinking of making four different categories, with widely differing requirements.

A basic tech shield would be:
"Particulate shielding"
requires Physics 1 to open.
medium sized generators, "phased" shields, weak strength, moderate self-regeneration.
The generators would trap a thick cloud of dust in magnetic fields, to protect the ship.

"Magnetic Shields"
Massive generators, sucking lots of supplies, little regeneration, moderate strength, normal protection. Basically a incredibly intense magnetic field deflects most particle beams on the subatomic level.

Next would be a
"Spacial Turbulence Shield"
requires Physics 2 or stellar manipulation 5 to open.
The generators create a standing gravitational wave at a certain distance from the ship, distorting & scattering beam weapons, and tearing physical objects into shreds of plasma.
Large generator size, heavy shielding, standard shield points, little to no regeneration.

With physics 3 and gravitational weapons,
you get a graviton shield tech area.
Smallish generators, providing good strength shielding, fast regen, and phased shields. Really expensive.

so, basically, you would have to decide whether to continue to develop the current technology to get a little more oomph out of 'em, or spend a bunch of research to get the beginning next-generation technology, which starts out weaker, but has more potential.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>normal V 300 500 0 (no change)
phased I 300 450 50
phased II 375 500 100
phased III 450 550 150
phased IV 525 600 200
phased V 600 650 250<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, 600 shields in your shield V is definitely way too much. Try having the advances slow down as the tech matures: ie.
N1: 75 (+75)
N2: 125 (+50)
N3: 160 (+35)
N4: 185 (+25)
N5: 200 (+15)
P1: 200 (+phasing)
P2: 260 (+60)
P3: 300 (+40)
P4: 320 (+20)
P5: 330 (+10)

This way, phased are still a breakthrough tech, giving your research into shields new life, but it dosen't go way beyond the original SE4 max shield strength.

[This message has been edited by suicide_junkie (edited 17 May 2001).]

Puke

May 17th, 2001, 08:34 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by geoschmo:
Nitpick alert...Nitpick alert...

Sorry Puke, the SR71 has never been caught by anything, and the U-2 wasn't cought by another aircraft. Gary Powers was shot down when the Soviet Air Defense sent up a BUNCH of surface to air missles. One managed to get close enough that when it exlploded it damaged his plane. (Of course the shotgun approach also knocked out at least one of the MIGS persuing him as well.)

Doesn't affect the point you were making. I just felt like being picky. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon10.gif
Geo<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

thank you for clarifying, i need to study up on my cold war facts it seems. i distinctly recal MIGs taking down one of our high altitude planes, it was part of how we came to realize the value of short range high speed planes. at least thats how the Version i read was selling the story. not sure which incident it was though, or with what aircraft.

DirectorTsaarx

May 17th, 2001, 10:27 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Nitram Draw:
I'm the opposite.
I would like to see even more differances in the regular and phased shields. I would like to see the ability "skips phased shields" added. Then you could create phased skipping weapons too, give a use for the Menson bLaster maybe. You would have to really know the enemy then!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the only shield-skipping weapon that's affected by phased shields is the phased-polaron beam. ISTR that Null-Space Weapons and Temporal Shifters will ignore phased shields as well as normal shields...

Or are you suggesting a "Reverse-Phased-Polaron" type weapon that is stopped by normal shields but passes through phased shields?

Nitram Draw

May 17th, 2001, 10:34 PM

Yes, I would like to see phased shield skipping weapons. Weapons that skipped specific armor would be neat also. That way you would have an even harder time building a killer ship. You could have specialized attack ships that work great against certain weapons but are vunerable to the wrong ones.
Don't guess wrong http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

Suicide Junkie

May 17th, 2001, 11:33 PM

That sounds like something that was kicked around a while ago...

-Give the weapons arbitrary damage types, from a damagetype.txt file.
-Give the defences arbitrary defence types too, from defencetypes.txt file.
-Every entry in damage types goes like the following:
Name := fire
Defence name 1 := normal shield
Defence effect 1 := block
Defence amount 1 := 100%
Defence name 2 := asbestos armor
defence effect 2 := changedamage
defence amount 2 := 50% (reduces damage by half before it hits this or any other components)
defence name 3 := flammable internals
defence effect 3 := block
defence amount 3 := 500% (hurts component 5x normal)
...etc...

you could make up as many defence types as you like, and have each one block, changedamage, be skipped, by each damage type individually!

----------------------------------
For the "solar sails without ship engines" thing, I've just made two different Sails. one normal, and one with "built in steering thrusters".

The steering thruster Version will cost a little more (50/0/50), and will provide one standard movement, and have one less bonus movement to compensate.
IE. SS3, thruster Version has: 1 standard, 2 bonus.

BTW, this has been tested and WORKS!!!
Just use the standard sail for engine ships, cause the solo Version uses up an engine slot.

[This message has been edited by suicide_junkie (edited 17 May 2001).]

Suicide Junkie

May 18th, 2001, 01:01 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>How about in addition to normal engines, tactical engines that give extra combat moves but less strategic moves and vice versa.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Use the afterburner ability! yes! and perhaps we could give an engine a "-1" afterburner, so it gives 2 movement in strategic, but gives a total of zero in tactical!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Reality attack. -ve afterburner stuff dosen't reduce combat speed.
Just remembered I may have forgotten a small detail... will update this after I check...
Crap. Its true. -ve afterburners change to zero effect.

Anybody have ideas on how to fake our way around this?

[This message has been edited by suicide_junkie (edited 18 May 2001).]

Nitram Draw

May 18th, 2001, 01:36 AM

You would definately have to make choices. Since the bonus moves on the standard engines require you to use all of the same type of engines the choices could get hard.
I think it will need a lot of tuning though or else we could have ships with 15 tactical moves or 25 strategic moves.
Now if MM would only expand on the AI ship building routine to allow specific types of ships to be built and add the Fleet composition file someone suggested we could have a really deadly AI!

dogscoff

May 18th, 2001, 01:58 AM

Space is big,
Space is dark,
It's hard to find,
A place to park.

While the above statement is undeniably true,
The universe currently simulated by Space Empires is very small and crowded. Within a few dozen turns, most systems have been colonised and explored, and all the empires are sitting in each others' laps.

How about a mod which creates a more "empty" universe? A universe where meeting another empire does not mean you will be squabbling over one another's home systems within a year. I'm thinking more Alien than Star Wars, more Red Dwarf than Trek, more Dark Star than Bab5.

Here's an idea of how to go about it:

First, the map generator files would have to be modded to make colonisable planets/ systems rarer and farther apart. This would increase their value and force players to look beyond their home systems.
Huge maps with fewer empires would also help.

Now, make colony ships and components far bigger and more expensive. I'm thinking maybe 800-1000 kt, with a 700-900 kt colony component and harsh combat modifiers.

Cargo components for smaller ships should be of limited use, forcing players to use large ships for any serious cargo movment. Adjust supply usage/ storage so that long range travel is really expensive for large ships. Different engines for different ship sizes maybe. (This could fit in nicely with that combat/game movement suggestion a few Posts down.)

Setting up a new colony would now be a *major* investment (and hence a *major* risk)- especially in another system.

New colonies would also be much more vulnerable. This is good, after all it's a long way home. Facilities should take longer to build, so that a new colony does not establish itself and become independent of external defence/ support too quickly.
Each player might only have a few dozen colonies throughout the entire game.

The supply restrictions on bigger ships and cargo restrictions on smaller ones would limit the expansion of infrastructure, so
military domination would then revolve around the strategic placement of fleets, mines, sats, space stations and colonies rather than simply racing to develop the bigger production base and throw ships at the enemy.

Fleets of small ships would be able to roam from system to system and rule over frontier space. However they would be more or less powerless against the defences of established systems. Attacking an enemy system would be an enormous projct.

Remote mining would play a greater role, as would moons, storms and nebulae. Physical warfare would become the Last resort when diplomacy and intel fail, although having good defences around your home systems would be more important than ever.

Some of S_J's mods (ie hardened bulkheads, cheap/ quality mounts) would make good additions since they make ships more individual. Phoenix-D's primitives (still in development, I believe) would also be good here, since their isolation would give them more bargaining power and more effective defences.

It would make for a much slower and more deliberate game, since ships and planets would no longer be "throwaway" items. Combat would be rarer but when it happened it would be truly epic, with loads of allied empires in gigantic battles.

I don't know how the AI would cope with all this but it would be cool for human players - a whole new game with a whole new feel.

Thoughts?

------------------
"Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
"Uh, I think so, Brain, but balancing a family and a career ... oooh, it's all too much for me. "

Marty Ward

May 18th, 2001, 03:40 AM

Couldn't you create a tactical engine that had no strategic move? You could mix them with the ion engines for your defense fleets.
How about just making another Version of the top two levels of engines? The alternative models would give one standard and one combat move and one standard and two combat moves.
Is there a maximum on the number of combat moves? 9 is the most I have seen and that was on a fighter.

[This message has been edited by Marty Ward (edited 18 May 2001).]

Aussie Gamer

May 18th, 2001, 04:08 AM

I have used thrusters from fighters afterburners to give my bases limited movement during combat only.

No reason that you could not remove totally all startegic movement from fighters and just have them only be able to operate in that sector they are dropped. Thus making them more reliant on carriers.

Marty Ward

May 18th, 2001, 04:27 AM

Do the afterburners work on bases? I tried giving a movement ability to the base vehicle and that didn't work.
How did you modify the component or did you give the ability to another component?
I agree with you about the fighters, no strategic moves really makes you use fighters as intended, local defense.
I think I may give modding a try and do some work on the fighters, they are already screwed up with the to hit plus and minus bonuses that I guess I can't hurt them.

dumbluck

May 18th, 2001, 02:21 PM

I know, but he wanted Ideas, so I thru one out. Here's another:

If you feel (as I do) that fighters shouldn't be able to just sit indefinately on a WP (how would you like sitting in a cramped cockpit for months on end!), just make the fighter lifesupport use supplies! I am also toying with the idea of making ALL life support use supplies, although not much.

And just out of curiosity (although changing this would affect game balance to much IMO), why is it that a Light carrier @ 800kt (AND lots of pilots to support) needs only 1 Lifesupport/crewquarters, while a Large Transport (consisting of mostly unmanned storage space) @ 900kt needs _3_ lifesupport/crew quarters?

WOW!!! can you say "run-on sentance"?

Nitram Draw

May 18th, 2001, 03:25 PM

Understand.
Will the lifesupport use supplies every turn? If so that is a good alternative to modifying the fighter engines, although I know someone will find a work around, we're such devious buggers http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif.

jimbob55

May 18th, 2001, 03:53 PM

For making tactical fighters change the fighter hulls to allow 1 engine max.
Only have 1 type of fighter engine for strategic move then a series of 'Tactical High power engines' which are effectively 3 or 4Kt afterburners with bonus tac move of 2, 3, 4, 5 etc. Interceptor tac engine gives 9 move, takes 10kt or whatever.
This would allow for VERY fast reduced armament interceptors or heavy armed slow fighters....... Both of which would require a carrier to make significant strategic moves.
Adjust the supply cost so that a fully loaded heavy fighter can only carry enough supplies for 2 tactical engagements (30 moves + say 20 shots of an expensive weapon).

Giving bases movement on the strategic scale makes them count as ships as far as score is concerned.

The workaround for fighter resupply is the same as the workaround for resupplying ships: Build a dedicated supply frigate with either solar panels / quantuum generator or lots of supply storage and fleet them with the fighters (effectively a fighter tender rather than carrier)

[This message has been edited by jimbob55 (edited 18 May 2001).]

capnq

May 18th, 2001, 04:41 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>However, I don't see any reason why Psychic sensors would ever be able to detect mines (after all, what brainwaves would they be picking up???)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Psychic tech involves more than just mindreading by telepathy. They could spot mines via clairvoyance or remote viewing.

------------------
Cap'n Q

The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the
human mind to correlate all of its contents. We live on a placid
island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was
not meant that we should go far. -- HP Lovecraft

Suicide Junkie

May 18th, 2001, 09:42 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Psychic tech involves more than just mindreading by telepathy. They could spot mines via clairvoyance or remote viewing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Uh oh. Bad direction here http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif
We need some excuses for how to hide ships from psychics, but the psychic tech just gets more powerful! http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

How about some sort of mental static generator, flooding space with psychic noise like in the end of the foundation series?

Should psychic sensors be population? Perhaps just a level 1 Psychic sensor could be added to the crew quarters of a psychic race, and higher levels require an amplifier or dedicated group of people.

-------------------------------------------
Speaking of population, I have 1kT troop hulls called "drop pods", and have Religious/Organic crossover 1kT component "Bio-engineered fanatic" that acts as a troop cockpit and has 5HP, and a 5 damage DUC built in.
I want to have a cheap "militia" unit to fit in the drop pod, which would be like throwing your population at the enemy force http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif
Problem is I don't want them to be used with the full size troops. The commando/fanatic looks OK as a pilot, but a militia piloting a tank dosen't seem right.
Any Ideas?

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

As for the engines... any ideas on how to get strategic movement without tactical movement??

[This message has been edited by suicide_junkie (edited 18 May 2001).]

Trachmyr

May 18th, 2001, 11:52 PM

Well, to hide from psychic sensors in my mod you need either a Spatial Cloaking device (only available to those with Spatial Mechanics) or a Psychic Shield (only available to Psycic tech... but CAN be stolen!)... a Distortion Cloak will block the lowest level psychic sensor. I allow psycic snsors to be the most powerful sensor, but they are one of the biggest/most expensive.

Trachmyr

May 18th, 2001, 11:58 PM

Oh, about afterburners (Combat movement)... you got one big problem with them, only the higest value is used... they DON'T add together (unless this was changed in the Last patch, but I don't think so)... so if you got 5 Tactical Engines each with a combat move of 2, you'll only get a combat speed of 2 NOT 10. Sorry for the bad news.

P.s. You should know that the ability used for solar sails can be added to other things, their are two values given for that ability, one is the speed bonus the other is a unique identifier... you only get the highest bonus from EACH identifier, thus you can make several componets with that ability and their effect can add together (but only 1 is effective for each type = identifier)

just a FYI

Trachmyr

May 19th, 2001, 12:13 AM

oh, one other thing... you don't have to lock yourself into using the ability given with solar-sails... just turn them into an engine, if you don't want the bonuses adding up the use the "one per vehicle" restriction. however they won't perform their old function (which is a good thing if you ask me, I've never understood why a solar-sail is so good at increasing the speed of dreadnoughts after they already have quantum engines propelling them). IMHO, solar sails should be used for SLOW low-maintaince auxillary or work-craft.

P.S IRL a new "solar sail" has been invented, it uses plasma to "inflate" a magnetic field to create a huge reflective bubble. The WORKING model is the size of a pickel jar and can create a sail 1/2 a square mile! The guy who invented it won a nobel peace prize. I read about this on NASA's site about 2 or 3 months ago. Makes you think huh?

dumbluck

May 19th, 2001, 01:01 AM

On a different topic...

Give mines varying levels of cloaking.

ie
Mines level1: low level of cloaking
Mines level2: medium level of cloaking
Mines level3: high level of cloaking

However, I don't see any reason why Psychic sensors would ever be able to detect mines (after all, what brainwaves would they be picking up???)

Or I may just be too sleepy to be thinking clearly....

Nitram Draw

May 19th, 2001, 01:05 AM

You can change the mine cloaking, works good against humans. I don't think it would have any effect on the AI, it seems to like blowing up mines with ships!
Just change the cloak level on the level 1 & 2 to whatever you want.
I thought about adding a crude mine that was not cloaked at all, 2 kt 20 point warhead, but figured it would only benefit me so I never tried it.

Marty Ward

May 19th, 2001, 01:42 AM

Do you know what identifier numbers are allowed for the solar sail movement?
As far as the tactical engines are concerned, if the idea is in order to get more combat moves you have to give up strategic moves then make the combat movement generator an engine, then if you use it you will lose any extra movement bonus gained by using the same engine types.

Trachmyr

May 19th, 2001, 02:08 AM

well the solar sail itself uses "1", all others are open... I would GUESS that you could go up to 255.

But you still got a problem with the engines, you make it an either or propositon... you can have fast ships that are slow in tactical or slow ships that are fast in tactical, but not fast/fast ships... so what's the point?

Marty Ward

May 19th, 2001, 02:32 AM

That is the whole point, what do you give up in order to gain something.

jimbob55

May 19th, 2001, 02:49 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Trachmyr:
Oh, about afterburners (Combat movement)... you got one big problem with them, only the higest value is used... they DON'T add together (unless this was changed in the Last patch, but I don't think so)... so if you got 5 Tactical Engines each with a combat move of 2, you'll only get a combat speed of 2 NOT 10. Sorry for the bad news.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But if you make set of tac engines with a range of movement from say 4 to 8 at different tech levels, each with a 5 or 10kt size it allows for fast interceptors with fewer weapons or slow bombers with more weapons.

Suicide Junkie

May 19th, 2001, 03:33 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>But you still got a problem with the engines, you make it an either or propositon... you can have fast ships that are slow in tactical or slow ships that are fast in tactical, but not fast/fast ships... so what's the point?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Slow, fast tac. ships use afterburners.
Fast, Fast ships use engines + afterburners.
how do you get a
fast, slow tac. ship? (as in 7 strategic, 1 combat?)

jimbob55

May 19th, 2001, 04:40 PM

Well, there's the problem.
The only way to make different tactical and strategic speeds possible for a slow tac and fast strategic ship is to edit lots of files.

All ships would require a 'max number of engines' much lower than it is at the moment. Strategic move engines would provide both tactical and strategic movement, but ships can only get a certain amount of tactical move from their engine (note, only one engine). Change all engine tech levels to provide 5 move, 50kt, cost of 5 normal engines. All ships to have max strategic engines 1. (note this means if your engines are hit, you are toast)
Then design the tactical booster engines for ships (only one component / ship works). For balance purposes, the higher the tactical speed bonus, the bigger the booster is going to have to be (more expensive too).
Fighter strategic engines would provide 1 move for 1kt or 2 move for 3kt or 3 move for 6kt etc. a similar progression of cost / space for speed for the ship tactical boosters.
For higher strategic engine tech levels, you decrease the cost / supply usage for the engine or add another move onto it as the unmodded engines do.

If someone actually impliments this, you'll have battle line of strategically mobile heavies supported by carriers with tactically fast fighter Groups.....
It would also allow for a big difference between attack and defense ships. Defense ships could max out tactical movement, while attack ships would require strategic movement trading off tactical speed to get it.

[This message has been edited by jimbob55 (edited 19 May 2001).]

Marty Ward

May 19th, 2001, 07:44 PM

Unless you can assign minus combat movement to an engine I don't think you can get fast strat/slow tac without a lot of modifications, like jimbob suggested.

AJC

May 19th, 2001, 08:22 PM

I have found the ancient galaxy to be pretty empty. When you have 225 Systems generated - alot of the time colony ships will run out of supply before finding a decent place to land.
I would think that modifying the ancient galaxy would be an easy way to create a more empty map.

Suicide Junkie

May 19th, 2001, 09:17 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>All ships would require a 'max number of engines' much lower than it is at the moment. Strategic move engines would provide both tactical and strategic movement, but ships can only get a certain amount of tactical move from their engine (note, only one engine). Change all engine tech levels to provide 5 move, 50kt, cost of 5 normal engines. All ships to have max strategic engines 1. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It shouldn't matter how many engines the ship has, tactical movement would be 1/2 strategic movement +afterburner bonus.

With 5 movement on the map, the ships would get 3 in combat, which is the usual speed of ships in normal SE4.

With the map editor, it would be possible to make a hyperspace system of wormholes, so ships could go five or six squares on a budget of two strategic movement points (into hyperspace, then out). An instant death black hole effect in hyperspace would prevent ships from hiding there, so every living ship would be in normal space.

It would be a ton of work to make warp points like that, but it might work.

1) create a new system beside each normal system. Give it a black hole movement of 10, and a damage of 10000.
2) make a warppoint from every sector in the normal system to the equivalent sector in the hyperspace system.
3) make a pile of wormholes from each hyperspace sector to the 9x9 grid of sectors in normal space closest to the "in" point. You can skip squares that are closer than 2 movement points from the in point. (Leaving 56 holes to make for each sector)
4) This allows capital ships to go 4 squares on 2 movement points. So they effectively have 4 movement strategic, and 1 movement combat. (But its a damn big job, and requires the edited map)

Suicide Junkie

May 19th, 2001, 09:17 PM

Trachmyr

May 19th, 2001, 10:56 PM

I was under the impression that you wanted a tactical engine that operated like a normal engine, but gave combat speed as well (i.e., each had 1 movement + 1 combat, so if you mount 6 you get 6 strategic and 9 tactical), that is why I though you couldn't do it. If you are going to just use 1 "afterburner" engine then it is do-able, but not terribly new (I've used them for a long time).

Here's one other idea that may let you make a difference between strategic/tactical engines... as you are not only talking about speed but also manuverabilty, you can add Defence to hit plus/minus to engines... since the ability now stack with others not of the same family. This can also be applied to sensors, giving certain types Offence to hit plus.

As far as the "Fast/slow" ship, I was refering to someone's idea of making the Tac-Engines a normal type of engine (presumably that you can only buy one of) that operated like a normal engine w/o move & bonus but with combat speed... for instance:

6 Quantum Engines: Speed 9/5 (1 move/3 bounus)
add afterburner (0 move/0 bounus/ 5 combat): speed becomes 6/8 (i.e., slow(er) strategic/ fast(er) tactical)

Personally, I would like to see combat speed stackable, just give all afterburners the "one per vechicle"... that way we can add bonuses to engines, vechicle hulls, etc.

Marty Ward

May 19th, 2001, 11:06 PM

I was thinking of the different engine capabilities.
I think it would be interesting to have 3 engines at each level that would have the restrictions on mixing types that the bonus moves now have. You would have one that would give the normal moves, one that would give more strategic but less combat moves and one that would give less strategic but more combat moves.
I've tried but I don't think it is possible to do this. Anyone have any ideas?

dumbluck

May 20th, 2001, 04:15 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Nitram Draw:
Understand.
Will the lifesupport use supplies every turn? If so that is a good alternative to modifying the fighter engines, although I know someone will find a work around, we're such devious buggers http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is the general Idea, but I've been looking in the data files and can't figure out how to make it do that. I can't find anything to do with "supplies used per turn" instead of "per use".

dumbluck

May 20th, 2001, 04:28 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by jimbob55:
For making tactical fighters change the fighter hulls to allow 1 engine max.
Only have 1 type of fighter engine for strategic move then a series of 'Tactical High power engines' which are effectively 3 or 4Kt afterburners with bonus tac move of 2, 3, 4, 5 etc. Interceptor tac engine gives 9 move, takes 10kt or whatever.
This would allow for VERY fast reduced armament interceptors or heavy armed slow fighters....... Both of which would require a carrier to make significant strategic moves.
Adjust the supply cost so that a fully loaded heavy fighter can only carry enough supplies for 2 tactical engagements (30 moves + say 20 shots of an expensive weapon).

Giving bases movement on the strategic scale makes them count as ships as far as score is concerned.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That seems reasonable. I don't think that fighters should have the range to roam all over a solar system. A fighter's speed and manueverablility are (in the real world) counteracted by their limited range. Otherwise, we wouldn't even need carriers at all!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The workaround for fighter resupply is the same as the workaround for resupplying ships: Build a dedicated supply frigate with either solar panels / quantuum generator or lots of supply storage and fleet them with the fighters (effectively a fighter tender rather than carrier)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I see no reason to change this; it is simply a strategic decision of the player. Remember, they have to pay maintenance on that resupply ship. If you want to leave fighters their, then you have to resupply them somehow. Some think that you should have to have a carrier for this, to which I reply, "Have you ever heard of mid-air refueling?".

Marty Ward

May 20th, 2001, 06:20 PM

I like the idea of limited range for the fighters. It is possible to do. Fighters can be made with just an afterburner and you get no strategic move, only combat move. You have no supplies though.
Removing the standard move from the fighter engines means they can only be placed away from a planet by a carrier or transport and gives them supply. This seems like the best alternative.
I have not seen the AI use fighters to fly around in a system,has anyone else seen the AI use fighters this way?
This change would put the AI on a more even playing field against humans who use fighters to patrol a system.

Happy_Dau

May 20th, 2001, 06:31 PM

@dumbluck:

I havn't seen anything yet using supplies per turn. But you could generally do this for the fighters:
Give the cockpit an extra ability to solar generate 1 (or 0 if possible) organic. Pilots have to poo some times. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

Latter just came to my mind to actually use supplies EVERY turn, since the generation happens every turn.

dogscoff

May 21st, 2001, 10:26 AM

QUOTE:
IRL a new "solar sail" has been invented, it uses plasma to "inflate" a magnetic field to create a huge reflective bubble. The WORKING model is the size of a pickel jar and can create a sail 1/2 a square mile!
/QUOTE

*narf!*

Do you have a URL for this?

------------------
"Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
"Uh, I think so, Brain, but balancing a family and a career ... oooh, it's all too much for me. "

capnq

May 21st, 2001, 03:58 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
IRL a new "solar sail" has been invented, it uses plasma to "inflate" a magnetic field to create a huge reflective bubble. The WORKING model is the size of a pickel jar and can create a sail 1/2 a square mile!

*narf!*

Do you have a URL for this?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/prop19aug99_1.htm

This article only describes a proposed prototype, not a working model, but the article is 21 months old, so it may have been built by now.

[This message has been edited by capnq (edited 21 May 2001).]

dogscoff

May 21st, 2001, 04:47 PM

Thanx for the URl... veeeeeery impressive technology, want to get me one of those.

I was looking for that article using sarch engines arlier, and although I didn't find it, I ran into some other intresting propulsion pages... Apparntly they already hav a 10x mor fficient replacement for the ion engine (like the one used on the "Elite" DS1 mission.)

<HOMER SIMPSON>
How come you guys can put a man on the moon but you can't make my shoes smell good?
</HOMER SIMPSON>

------------------
"Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
"Uh, I think so, Brain, but balancing a family and a career ... oooh, it's all too much for me. "

dogscoff

May 21st, 2001, 04:49 PM

You may have noticed, the "e" key on this keyboard isn't too good http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

------------------
"Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
"Uh, I think so, Brain, but balancing a family and a career ... oooh, it's all too much for me. "

Baal

May 21st, 2001, 11:10 PM

My mod idea has to do with engines. Make a Buzzard Ram Jet. Attach the solar collector ability to an engine. It would collect less than sollar collectors of course.

As for the tactical/strategic engines discussed earlier. I think it would make sense to have differentt fuel consumptions. A ctactical engine is going to consume more fuel so it is faster but shorter range, but are faster in tactical combat. Strategic on the other hand has to do with long term voyages which are more fuel efficient but give few tactical movement points.

I didn't read the whole thread so this might just be a repeat.

Trachmyr

May 21st, 2001, 11:28 PM

This is what I got so far in my mod:

There are 6 propulsion technologies:

Chemicle Rockets levels 1-3 at 20K each, Start level 1

Electrical-Based Propulsion levels 1-5 at 50k
Ion Drive 1-5
Ether-Ram 1-5, needs physics 2
Jacketed-Photon Drive 1-5, needs pyhsics 3
Quantum Drive 1-5, needs physics 5

Nuclear-Based Propulsion levels 1-5 at 50K
Fission Rocket 1-5
Fusion Rocket 1-5, needs physics 1
Fusion Drive 1-5, needs physics 2
Contra-Terrene Drive (Antimatter) 1-5, needs physics 4

Resonance-Based Propulsion levels 1-3 at 100K - Ruin's Technology
Resonance Engines 1-3

Gravity-Based Propulsion levels 1-5 at 50K, needs astropyhsics 3 & physics 4
Gravity Drive 1-5

Solar-Based Propulsion levels 1-3 at 25K
Solar Sail 1-3, needs construction 1-3 & astrophysics 1
Plasma Sail 1-3, needs physics 1-3 & astrophysics 2

What do they do?
Chemicle Rockets are moderate speed & HUGE fuel usage (i.e., 60/50/40)... improved levels reduce supply usage & lower costs.

Electrical-Based Propulsion are high efficiency, low speed engines. Photon-Jacketed engines get a 1 movement boost $ quantum Drives are 50% faster. improved levels reduce costs signifagantly.

Nuclear-based propulsion is fast with high supply usage. Each successive type (except Fusion Drives) become faster. Anti-matter is 2.5x speed! improved levels (especially for Fusion Drives) have better fuel usage.

Resonance-Based propulsion is a moderate speed, high-efficiency engine that can only be found at ruins. Improved levels reduce costs and mass.

Gravity-Based Propulsion is a quick, effieient engine. Improved levels raise efficency/speed and reduce mass/cost slightly.

Solar-Based Propulsion is a VERY slow, Extremely efficient drive (0 for sails, 3 for plasma). improved levels reduce costs/mass for solar-sails and give a slight speed bounus to plasma-sails.

Feel free to use anything you like. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

In addition, I don't have "afterburners" because I use that ability for my "Engineering" componet. But I am adding hit penalties/bounuses to engines. The faster (brute force engines, particularly Nuclear... but also gravity to a lesser extent, plus resonance) get a penalty to be hit... while the lower electrical-based and solar-based in particular, get a bounus to be hit. (solar Sail will be at +50%). Oh, one Last thing, I treat Solar-Sails as armour so they get blown away first!

[This message has been edited by Trachmyr (edited 21 May 2001).]