POLL->things we'd really like in Next Patch (Platinum II) [Archive]

Will

November 1st, 2002, 06:45 AM

Some comments....

Facility that adds facility space to a planet
You DO realize how unbalancing/unrealistic this is, correct? Maybe if there is a one per planet restriction...

When viewing a system show what ships and colonies are in the system the Last time the player could see it
If this is put in, it really should be set to off by default. Not everyone has the luxury of game files in excess of several megabytes. Even if it's just limited to storing the ship class/planet population, that's a lot of extra data to keep track of for each player.

Save kT destroyed for individual ships instead of just class
File size, but not as much as above... only 4 bytes * total_ships, but still, for such a trivial thing... ship experience is a good enough indicator of this.

Show the damage to ships in combat replay for simultaneous game
Ok, for this one, you're talking huge combat files. Right now, the game only has to save movement coordinates, firing targets (and whether the shot hit or missed), and ship damage at the end of each combat turn. This would require saving the component hit for each shot and if it's destroyed, as well. The file size increases of the Last two would be trivial compared to the hugeness of this if there is a big confrontation.

For those, IMHO, the "benefits" (AKA "coolness factor") of these updates wouldn't help gameplay significantly, and would add restrictions to some Users. You have to remember, not everyone has high bandwidth or insanely huge hard drives.

For the rest, nothing immediately comes to mind on potential problems, other than varying degrees of coding effort. And, since only one person (perhaps a few others) knows anything about the SE4 source, I can't really comment on difficulty http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Phoenix-D

November 1st, 2002, 06:52 AM

"If this is put in, it really should be set to off by default. Not everyone has the luxury of game files in excess of several megabytes. Even if it's just limited to storing the ship class/planet population, that's a lot of extra data to keep track of for each player."

The save files don't get that large even when you CAN see what everyone is doing.. (i.e. partnerships). I can see 90% of the galaxy in one of my games, and it's under a meg.

Phoenix-D

Will

November 1st, 2002, 06:56 AM

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
The save files don't get that large even when you CAN see what everyone is doing.. (i.e. partnerships). I can see 90% of the galaxy in one of my games, and it's under a meg.

Phoenix-DIt's not just seeing a large percentage of the galaxy, it's storing WHEN you saw it, and doing that for each player. The game file contains the data for each player, so for every system there needs to be a section for when/if each player Last viewed that system, and what/where everything was in the system. This is much different than seeing what is in a large portion of the quadrant this turn.

HEMAN

November 1st, 2002, 08:02 AM

Thanks for making this poll DAVID.
Originally posted by Baron Grazic:
You are only allowed to Vote for 3 things out of that list of Great Features. ...Very Hard...

REPLY; No kidding its hard http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif .If i only could select 5 choices.
My choices are (a)satilite(b)Warpoint(c)Intell, too hard ,theres RAIN WATER coming from my HEAD??? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif .

Fyron

November 1st, 2002, 08:23 AM

Will, SP savegame files aren't that large, and they store all that combat data. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

That extra data would be tremendously useful. It would allow you to see just what went wrong when you lose a battle, and what went right when you win.

[ November 01, 2002, 06:25: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Lemmy

November 1st, 2002, 01:11 PM

Of that list there is only ONE thing i really want, and it is wanted by several modders for as long as i can remember.

Components with intel and research abilities
(This could be expanded a bit by also letting the Cloack ability work for facilities and/or planets.)

[ November 01, 2002, 11:12: Message edited by: Lemmy ]

DavidG

November 1st, 2002, 01:53 PM

File size??? I've got a 'small' 40GB HD Who the heck cares about file size? Info about what you saw in a system and when does not have to be stored in the .gam file. (I hate it when computer games forces you to use a pencil and paper or have a photographic memory)

Surely the components that are dammaged on each ship during simultaneous combat is already in the cmb file?

Ship experiance is not even close to a good indicater of amount of actual combat experience since it can get to 20% but just sitting in orbit.
Yes storing combat stats for individual ships is trivial but I think it would be fun.

BTW most of these ideas are not mine, just extracted from the other thread.

geoschmo

November 1st, 2002, 04:41 PM

Originally posted by DavidG:
File size??? I've got a 'small' 40GB HD Who the heck cares about file size? Info about what you saw in a system and when does not have to be stored in the .gam file. (I hate it when computer games forces you to use a pencil and paper or have a photographic memory)I am not disagreeing that it would be nice to have this extra info available. And some of it wouldn't increase the file size at all, cause the info is there, it's just not being accessed. But the issue of file size is not just one of HD space. Once the files get to a certain size they could begin to be a problem for people playing multiplayer. PBEM, PBW, TCP/IP, all three can be hampered if the files get too big.

Geoschmo

[ November 01, 2002, 14:41: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Pax

November 1st, 2002, 05:43 PM

Originally posted by Will:
Some comments....
<blockquote>quote:<hr />
When viewing a system show what ships and colonies are in the system the Last time the player could see itIf this is put in, it really should be set to off by default. Not everyone has the luxury of game files in excess of several megabytes. Even if it's just limited to storing the ship class/planet population, that's a lot of extra data to keep track of for each player.<hr /></blockquote>Um, ctually, that's not true. The data is all IN there already -- EVERY PLAYER gets that same .GAM file. So, that .gam file already includes data on which worlds are colonies -- and even, what EXACT facilities are on each, etc.

And the design data for each ship, to the exact component.

NOT just for the race you're playing. You may only see one race's worth of information, but it'd be no difficult thign to at -least- still mark -colonies- (don't show population, don't record shisp or orbitals or units, just mark them as COLONIES of the owning race). The information is all in there already, after all. The EXE just has to let us SEE some more of it.

Suicide Junkie

November 1st, 2002, 06:17 PM

Um, ctually, that's not true. The data is all IN there already -- EVERY PLAYER gets that same .GAM file. So, that .gam file already includes data on which worlds are colonies -- and even, what EXACT facilities are on each, etc.You don't quite get it. There always needs to be one overall "true picture" copy of the map, which is what you're focussing on.

The suggestion would multiply the size by up to 21 times, since a separate map needs to be maintained for what each player saw Last time they were there...

One real map, and 20 variants, based on each empire's knowledge.

Gryphin

November 1st, 2002, 06:26 PM

DaveG, Thanks for putting this together. 3 options is a great idea. It realy forces you to say where you would like Arron to focus his efforts.

tesco samoa

November 1st, 2002, 07:15 PM

bah... where is sortable reports... and search function when looking for stuff... and the filter button....end bah

good list... I voted on three. but could have picked about 10....

Will

November 1st, 2002, 08:13 PM

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
One real map, and 20 variants, based on each empire's knowledge.That's what I was trying to say, just couldn't find the right explanation, I guess... With the current game file, the only thing that could be accomplished is a slightly toned down Version of omnipresent viewpoint.

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Will, SP savegame files aren't that large, and they store all that combat data. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif IIRC, the combat data is stored in *.cmb files, but it has been a while since I've played, so I might be hallucinating http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Ragnarok

November 1st, 2002, 08:55 PM

Speaking of omnipresent view, what exactly does this do? I've never used it in a game and I've always wondered what it did.

Will

November 1st, 2002, 09:00 PM

You can see everything in the quadrant. Think "god mode"... although I don't think you can see things like opponent ship designs, facilities on planets, etc. It's just like having a bare-bones satellite in each system, pretty much.

Ragnarok

November 1st, 2002, 09:28 PM

Originally posted by Will:
You can see everything in the quadrant. Think "god mode"... although I don't think you can see things like opponent ship designs, facilities on planets, etc. It's just like having a bare-bones satellite in each system, pretty much.Oh ok, thanks Will.

DavidG

November 2nd, 2002, 01:58 AM

Re: File size and viewing systems you've moved through

Of course file size is important for any files that need to be e-mailed or transfered, but could this data not be stored on the players own drive? Also I doubt even if it was stored in the .gam file that it would increase the file size by 21 times. The current 'snapshot' of the galaxy must contain a lot of info that you would not need to view a system (ie details on all facilities on every plant, build queues on those planets etc).

However the point is that being able to view what was in a system the Last time you could see it would be a very nice feature IMHO. Wether or not it is feasable or wether or not it would negativly affect the saved files sizes is a question only MM can answer.

rextorres

November 2nd, 2002, 03:54 AM

I do a lot of micromanagment and one thing I'd like is to see - that no one mentions - is the ability to give orders without having to jump to the planet or ship. For instance launch satellite or retrofit at the ship list.

Gandalph

November 2nd, 2002, 04:34 AM

I tried, I really, reeally tried, but I couldn't do it. I cannot ask for only 3 of those almost all excellant choices. If I did restrict my vote to 3 choices, I would be lying about what I really want.

Fyron

November 2nd, 2002, 05:22 AM

Originally posted by Will:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Will, SP savegame files aren't that large, and they store all that combat data. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif IIRC, the combat data is stored in *.cmb files, but it has been a while since I've played, so I might be hallucinating http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif <hr /></blockquote>And? Whether the info is in 1 file or 2 doesn't really make a difference (except for a few bytes for creating the second file).

Grandpa Kim

November 2nd, 2002, 07:16 AM

None of the above. Fix all current bugs, then we'll talk.

Kim

Will

November 2nd, 2002, 08:59 AM

Originally posted by DavidG:
Of course file size is important for any files that need to be e-mailed or transfered, but could this data not be stored on the players own drive? Also I doubt even if it was stored in the .gam file that it would increase the file size by 21 times. The current 'snapshot' of the galaxy must contain a lot of info that you would not need to view a system (ie details on all facilities on every plant, build queues on those planets etc).Increasing the file size 21 times would be the maximum possible, it's much more likely that it would be lower, probably around 2-4 times file size (just a wild guess). However, in my original post, I said that if it's implemented it should be off by default... hence implying that there be a flag in the game options screen. I didn't say that it shouldn't be done because of file size, just that the ability to turn it on/off be included.

As for hard disk space, from beta testing to sometime around v.1.30, I was playing SEIV on a computer with a whopping 1GB hard drive (approximately 100MB was free, and it complained when free space fell below 75MB). Sure, in the current computer market, 40GB is small and 1GB usually refers to RAM, but not everyone buys a new computer every six months.

Imperator Fyron: I also seem to recall that after turns with rather large, multiple battles, the *.cmb files were also huge. But, as I said, it's been a while since I've played... because it's been a while since I could have played. I don't have access to any of my savegames at home, or I could probably dig up a big file. And of course, this one should also be a flag. I never said "remembering" the system and combat details should not be done, I just said they should be set to off (flags).

Fyron

November 2nd, 2002, 09:18 AM

In one game turn where there was a hugely massive ship battle or 10, the cmb file was 616KB. Not very much, considering it gets overwritten every turn, and is rarely that large. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ November 02, 2002, 07:22: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

DavidG

November 2nd, 2002, 06:55 PM

Originally posted by Will:
Some comments....

<blockquote>quote:<hr />
Facility that adds facility space to a planet
You DO realize how unbalancing/unrealistic this is, correct? Maybe if there is a one per planet restriction...
<hr /></blockquote>Actaully never thought about it before since this was someone elses idea. However I would think this could work if it was like Atmospheric Converter. After say a year you get 25% more facilities.

geoschmo

November 2nd, 2002, 07:27 PM

RE: Adding facility spots. It's not as "sexy" maybe as adding a new hardcode feature toy, but you can mod in combo facilities that have the ablilities of different kinds of facilities, or enhanced facilities that are like two of the same kind of facilitiy. Does the same thing pretty much.

Geoschmo

Skulky

November 3rd, 2002, 03:13 AM

*light clicks on in head* What if the views of these systems you "saw" were stored on YOUR harddrive? YOUR hard drive would take a "screenshot" each turn, then check if it needed to update it with a new one from the current .gam file. If it didn't then it would save it for your viewing. I already do this for one of my games with the "print screen" command and then placing it in a .ppt file only it doesn't have as much detail as a game generated one would.

If it was turned on in the normal game then each player (depending on their HD space) coudl decided whether to use it or not. I don't think you'd have a problem with hacking either, despite the generally honest nature of everyone here, because, unless you tricked the game into thinking you had a ship there you wouldnt' get a "newer" update.

Hope that makes sense.

Will

November 3rd, 2002, 06:47 AM

That could work... screenshots would be vastly inefficient, but saving system information into a seperate file (e.g. gameName_playerNumber.map, or whichever file extension) could work nicely. Would be more... graphical than keeping a Notepad (either the Windoze or the physical variety)archive of each game.

Thus, it becomes an individual player's option, and doesn't bog down TCP/IP, PBW, PbEM... Why didn't I see that? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

Oh well.

Suicide Junkie

November 3rd, 2002, 06:55 AM

What about the ability to save simultaneous game turns, and continue later?

Quikngruvn

November 3rd, 2002, 07:24 AM

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
What about the ability to save simultaneous game turns, and continue later?I second that! (Heck, it was hard enough picking three out of the ones presented....)

Quikngruvn

November 3rd, 2002, 07:54 AM

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
What about the ability to save simultaneous game turns, and continue later?That's the main reason why I usually don't play simultaneous games although it would be much fairer against the AI. If it takes more than half an hour in the later game for me to make the turn, it is annoying that I can't interrupt, save what I did and continue later.
That should not be too difficult for MM to implement.

Skulky

November 3rd, 2002, 08:22 AM

OMG, when you're almos done with a turn, and gtg but leave your computer on and it frezzes and now you have an extra 2 hrs of work (which you just perfected).

AHHHHHHH, this i want to not be a problem, no?

Desdinova

November 4th, 2002, 06:59 AM

i would like to see an option on the starmap editor that would allow you to select a position on the starmap then randomly create a starsystem at that location. then edit the system as usual from there.

Mephisto

November 4th, 2002, 06:33 PM

Latest patch infos:

Version 1.82:
1. Changed - Ships in combat will now follow their fleet's strategy regardless
of whether they are in a combat group or not.
2. Fixed - Computer Players which had a "Computer Player Bonus" set above
None were not using all of their bonus funds.
3. Fixed - The largest ship in a sector was not always being drawn on top
in the system display.
4. Fixed - Planets in combat would not fire all of their weapons (sometimes).
5. Fixed - Planets in combat would not fire enough seekers against a target
to guarantee its destruction (sometimes).
6. Fixed - Improved the Transport minister a little.
7. Added - The Log Window will now return you to the item you had selected the
Last time you were in the window.
8. Fixed - Ships with a Tractor Beam would not fire weapons located after
the tractor beam in their design.

tesco samoa

November 4th, 2002, 07:30 PM

. Fixed - Improved the Transport minister a little...

What ??

did it go from a horrible status to a half-A%% position ??

Please explain!

November 4th, 2002, 08:10 PM

"7. Added - The Log Window will now return you to the item you had selected the
Last time you were in the window."

This is excellent!
If the same could be done for other large lists like construction, ship, colonies list it would make things a lot easier in large/late games.

Crimson

November 4th, 2002, 08:10 PM

Originally posted by DavidG:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Will:
Some comments....

<blockquote>quote:<hr />
Facility that adds facility space to a planet
You DO realize how unbalancing/unrealistic this is, correct? Maybe if there is a one per planet restriction...
<hr /></blockquote>Actaully never thought about it before since this was someone elses idea. However I would think this could work if it was like Atmospheric Converter. After say a year you get 25% more facilities.<hr /></blockquote>This would not be needed as much, if all the facility abilities could also be used by bases, like research and intel. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

Gandalph

November 4th, 2002, 09:59 PM

Originally posted by [K126]Mephisto:
Latest patch infos:

How about how soon we may see this patch. The TDB bug is wreaking havoc in several games.

[ November 04, 2002, 19:59: Message edited by: Gandalph ]

PaladinX

November 4th, 2002, 10:03 PM

Bah. I want racial trait restrictions and requirements, and planetary drives http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

-Paladin

DirectorTsaarx

November 4th, 2002, 11:58 PM

Originally posted by [K126]Mephisto:
Latest patch infos:

Version 1.82:
1. Changed - Ships in combat will now follow their fleet's strategy regardless of whether they are in a combat group or not.
Ummmm... does this mean unarmed ships/carriers/etc. will no longer run to the corners if they're part of a fleet that has a strategy of "[Optimum/point-blank/max/etc.] weapons range" or any of the other combat-oriented strategies? I can see that it might make planet invasions easier, and get rid of the "bug" that ships with only PDC will run from battle, but I'd like my supply and repair ships to stay away from the enemy ships...

Suicide Junkie

November 5th, 2002, 01:53 AM

If a warship on optimum range orders loses all its weapons, it will run for the corners.
So a ship that starts with no weapons will run for it too.

HEMAN

November 6th, 2002, 01:54 AM

6. Fixed - Improved the Transport minister a little. Really like to know what this means too http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif ?.

I still like my idea of (1) Moddable Ministers to fine tune them? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif .

DAVID G >When do you think is a good time to close this poll,to send to MM.The poll looks pretty good what people want right now http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif .

Pax

November 6th, 2002, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by DirectorTsaarx:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by [K126]Mephisto:
Latest patch infos:

Version 1.82:
1. Changed - Ships in combat will now follow their fleet's strategy regardless of whether they are in a combat group or not.
Ummmm... does this mean unarmed ships/carriers/etc. will no longer run to the corners if they're part of a fleet that has a strategy of "[Optimum/point-blank/max/etc.] weapons range" or any of the other combat-oriented strategies? I can see that it might make planet invasions easier, and get rid of the "bug" that ships with only PDC will run from battle, but I'd like my supply and repair ships to stay away from the enemy ships...<hr /></blockquote>Perhaps a hard-coded Fleet Strategy of "On Your Own" needs to be added, which only specifies "ships will use their own strategy, as specified for their design" ...

That way you can have a single fleet, a mixed lot of missile and beam-armed warships, with a single logistics-and-repair ship -- and the missile ships will use a good missile strategy, the beam ships will use a good beam strategy, and the logistics ship will run for the (figurative) hills.

DavidG

November 6th, 2002, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by Pax:
Perhaps a hard-coded Fleet Strategy of "On Your Own" needs to be added, which only specifies "ships will use their own strategy, as specified for their design" ...
Can't this be done in the current game? Just create a strategy were all ships will break formation.

Pax

November 6th, 2002, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by DavidG:
Can't this be done in the current game? Just create a strategy were all ships will break formation.Er, did you miss this part ... ?

Version 1.82:
1. Changed - Ships in combat will now follow their fleet's strategy regardless of whether they are in a combat group or not.

That means, if the fleet's strategy is "Maximum range" and you have Troop Transports (each with a single APB) -and- multi-APB warships in the same fleet, and set the fleet to Maximum Range -and- break formation ... the Troop Transports will still try to kinfe-fight with the enemy warships, before dropping off their troops.

Why?

Because the fleet's "Maximum Range" strategy will OVERRIDE the Troop Transport's "capture planet" design-strategy, even if the trasnports break formation.

So, I'd like to see some sort of way to have one or mroe types of ship override the fleet strategy.

Perhaps, for each strategy, a list of types, like the list of those types which break formation, would work -- but the list being design types, so you'd not see just "ships" but "troop transports" versus "carriers" and so on.

Unless we can get "nested fleets" -- IOW fleets within fleets -- the result will be a nightmare of MM for anyone seeking to use combined arms tactics (bunch of warships, supported by a couple carriers, and backed up by a logistics/repair ship or two and some troop transports).

By the current 1.82 setup, we will have to put each type of ship into seperate fleets, and move the fleets together, turn after turn (one turn's movement at a time, or, after the first turn's movement they will start moving one at a time, and NOT join battle as a single grouping ...). That means more MM, more effort, more time to process turns on the player end.

I'd like to be able to set fleets up to have seperate Battle Groups, each of which gets it's own strategy; then we could set up a point-blank PDC Aegis group, a Short Range APB "gunline" group, a Medium-range missile group, put the carriers at maximum range on Fighter Attack strategy, and have the troopships try and just bull their way through to the planet -- all in one fleet, with each group focussed on a different strategy, and even formation (putting the PDC/aegis ships into a disperesed formation, at a range where they are spread out among the other Groups, would be a possibility, for example ...).

At present, in v1.82, we may have to use multiple fleets for what, before, took only a single fleet to accomplish. *sigh*

Chronon

November 6th, 2002, 04:27 PM

Originally posted by Pax:
I'd like to be able to set fleets up to have seperate Battle Groups, each of which gets it's own strategy; then we could set up a point-blank PDC Aegis group, a Short Range APB "gunline" group, a Medium-range missile group, put the carriers at maximum range on Fighter Attack strategy, and have the troopships try and just bull their way through to the planet -- all in one fleet, with each group focussed on a different strategy, and even formation (putting the PDC/aegis ships into a disperesed formation, at a range where they are spread out among the other Groups, would be a possibility, for example ...)Pax, I agree! Battle Groups, or nested fleets, would be the best way to solve the present quirks in the fleet orders system. From what I've read MoO3 will have this kind of system. Perhaps for Space Empires V ...?

capnq

November 6th, 2002, 09:27 PM

Version 1.82:
1. Changed - Ships in combat will now follow their fleet's strategy regardless of whether they are in a combat group or not. I'm not sure people are interpreting what this does correctly.

The manual uses "combat group" to describe an ad hoc formation built in Tactical Combat with the Set Group Leader/Set Group Member Orders.

If that's what this is referring to, I have no idea how to interpret what this change does.

[Edit] &ltlightbulb&gt Unless the entire fleet is considered a combat group when combat starts. I'm still not sure what the change is supposed to be doing, though.

[ November 06, 2002, 19:47: Message edited by: capnq ]

Mephisto

November 6th, 2002, 10:49 PM

Version 1.82:
1. Changed - Ships in combat will now follow their fleet's strategy regardless of whether they are in a combat group or not. I think it fixes this bug:
http://www.shrapnelgames.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=007302;p=1

5th post from the top.

PaladinX

November 6th, 2002, 10:51 PM

Why not just do what I do, group your ships up by task, make them into separate fleets, with their own strategies and formations, and then you can just shift-select them all and give them a group move order.

A little more management required, but it seems to work well enough for me. I'll take my line ships and set them to the optimal range strategy, usually in wall formation, my long range, long reload time ships to maximum weapons range strategy in a tighter formation, etc.

It also keeps your support ships from gumming up your formations, since you can keep them in a separate fleet as well... In fact I don't send them into attacks even most of the time, just have them catch up once it's over...

-Paladin

Chronon

November 6th, 2002, 11:56 PM

PaladinX - Thanks for that tip; I didn't know there was a group move order. Will all of your fleets arrive at the same time in simultaneous movement (ie, for PBW games)? I'd hate to have my minesweepers show up AFTER the rest of my fleet has been destroyed by mines. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

DavidG

November 7th, 2002, 12:33 AM

Originally posted by PaladinX:
Why not just do what I do, group your ships up by task, make them into separate fleets, with their own strategies and formations, and then you can just shift-select them all and give them a group move order.

A little more management required, -PaladinI see two problems with this. One as you say is a 'little more management'. Yuck. The other is what happens if the fleets have different speeds. Then I beleive they could end up separated at the end of the turn and if a combat occures one could show up and fight first.

I really hope the interpretation of the 1.82 fix does not mean supply and mine sweeper ships follow the combat guys into the attack. If so the current system is better IMO. Supply ships and other Defense ships that are in for example an 'optimum range' fleet and then run for the corners are as far as I'm concerned obeying their fleet orders since the fleet orders for that strategy tell them to break formation.

I presume some beta testers have played ver 1.82. How about they tell us how it works?

Suicide Junkie

November 7th, 2002, 02:29 AM

You didn't read Pax's post.
Look at what he quoted.

PaladinX

November 7th, 2002, 07:05 AM

Well, granted it would be better if you could create flotillas of fleets... But it works as a workaround. I can't say how it works in simultaneous, I haven't played in simul yet, but it works in turn based. They all move together in the first turn, and will stop as soon as the slowest fleet runs out of movement, however, you have to cancel the order and reissue every turn for long moves or else they end up separating.

Still, it's a way to handle it for now.

I will say I would prefer to have flotillas or else multiple battle Groups within a single fleet and keep the fleet orders override other behavior feature in place.

capnq

November 8th, 2002, 01:30 AM

Will all of your fleets arrive at the same time in simultaneous movement (ie, for PBW games)? They'll only move together for one turn's worth of movement, in both simultaneous and turn-based. It's been reported that they enter combat separately in simultaneous, even if they moved together.

geoschmo

November 8th, 2002, 01:44 AM

Originally posted by capnq:
[QUOTE]It's been reported that they enter combat separately in simultaneous, even if they moved together.I must admit I was one of the main one's spreading that bit of apparent misinformation. I did some test's the other day and confirmed that they do in faact enter combat together if they are moving together, which as you say they will do the first turn.

Geoschmo

DavidG

November 8th, 2002, 04:41 AM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by capnq:
[QUOTE]It's been reported that they enter combat separately in simultaneous, even if they moved together.I must admit I was one of the main one's spreading that bit of apparent misinformation. I did some test's the other day and confirmed that they do in faact enter combat together if they are moving together, which as you say they will do the first turn.

Geoschmo<hr /></blockquote>By moving together I assume you mean with PaladinX's method. Do you know what happens in simul movement if the fleets have different top movement speeds?