Next Upgrade/patch

[mottlee]

Seeing that Richard is no longer in the Pic we can not ask him Soooo, has anyone any word as to the next release and what it will have/be? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ January 23, 2003, 01:34: Message edited by: mottlee ]

[Ragnarok]

Originally posted by mottlee:
Seeing that Richard is no longer in the Pic we can not ask him Soooo, has anyone any word as to the next release and what it will have/be? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I heard if it isn't out by the holidays then Aaron will have it out sometime before the end of January. That's just what I heard, I can't remember where I heard it either.

[mottlee]

Cool any idea on what is in it? (miss Richards Intel)

[Ragnarok]

Originally posted by mottlee:
Cool any idea on what is in it? (miss Richards Intel)<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The newest Version is 1.82. That I know of, at least thats the latest patch Version that has been talked about.
Here is the History of fixes that have been done.

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.

Version 1.81:
1. Fixed - "Crew ConVersion" damage type will work on all target types,
again.
2. Fixed - "Crew ConVersion" damage type will fail against a ship with
a Master Computer (regardless if that component is damaged or
not). It does not matter if there is a Bridge on the ship.
3. Fixed - AI will no longer launch "Anti-Planet" Drones in combat.
4. Added - Option to strategems to control how many drones are launched
per target in combat.
5. Changed - You can now give drones orders to Attack warp points. This
is essentially the same as telling them to warp through
and attack anything on the other side. Any survivors can then
be given new orders.

Version 1.80:
1. Fixed - Integer Overflow when a unit with no shields was hit by normal
weapons.
2. Changed - "Crew ConVersion" damage type will only work against ships
regardless of the target type.
3. Fixed - "Crew ConVersion" damage type will fail against a ship with
a Master Computer (regardless if that component is damaged or
not).
4. Fixed - You can now give resource gifts in excess of 200,000.
5. Added - "x10000" and "x100000" to the Select Package window for resources.
6. Fixed - Fighters were unable to "Fire On And Destroy" ships.
7. Fixed - Organic Armor was pre-regenerating itself before damage occurred
in combat.

Version 1.79:
1. Fixed - "X Damage to Shields" damage types were not working correctly.
2. Fixed - Shield Depeleters will now work properly against units.
3. Fixed - The result of a Communication interception intelligence project
will be displayed with arrows in the log window.
4. Fixed - Ships would clear their order if trying to move to sector 0,0.
5. Fixed - Ships with regnerating armor will regnerate all of their armor
at the end of combat.
6. Fixed - During a Deconstruct & Analyze, you would sometimes receive duplicate
techs if a component and the vehicle size were new to you.

[mottlee]

Thanks realy like 1.82 #7 http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Deathstalker]

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

Not sure about this one. Does this mean 'breaking formation' will do nothing (ie, ships won't follow their own strategy?). If so, I don't like. I want my ships to break formation so that some will hold off at max range while others close to point blank. (ie, missile and ripper beam ships).
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

[tesco samoa]

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

Yea... I do not like that one either...

Please explain oh beta testers

[Graeme Dice]

Originally posted by Ragnarok:
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.

7. Fixed - Organic Armor was pre-regenerating itself before damage occurred
in combat.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">These are the two that I think shouldn't have been changed.

The first is because I want ships to break formation for a reason, so that they use their individual strategies instead of the fleet strategy. Otherwise you can't mix different types of ships effectively in a single fleet and the strategic options become fewer. This is a change from what I see as the correct behaviour to what I would consider a bug.

The organic armour change causes the problem that the regeneration in combat is now nearly useless. The armour is already only half as good as shields, and it really needs the preregeneration to make it a viable choice for ships, as it still has all the other disadvantages of armour with regards to disabling and armour skipping weapons. The fact that it will all regenerate after combat doesn't really compensate because the ship needs to actually survive for that to be a factor, and ships don't tend to survive half-damaged in large numbers.

[spoon]

1. Changed - Ships in combat will now follow their fleet's strategy regardless
of whether they are in a combat group or not<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What's a "combat group"?

[HEMAN]

Thanks mottlee & Ragnarok for this patch post, I like V1.82 #6 and 7 http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif , V1.80 #5. I hope there s more to add to the patch,How about Ideas like;

(a) Intell > Demand that you remove your ships/or colonies from (my systems), instead of a pacific system.makes it simpler for player.

(b) Multi-add > (One turns worth), on that menu.

(c) Empire > Game setup tab, a print out or list of the current set up empire.this way player can remember the diffucuty ai etc/ and own settings.
(d) ) In game help manuel > More INFO like (A)pop 4000m = 4billion or 4million?.(B)ministers(C)intell(D) demeanors,in game set up & ministers.

[Krsqk]

Given the wording about "combat Groups," it may not be referring to ships set on Break Formation. Then again, I could just be doing some wishful thinking.

[Ragnarok]

Originally posted by Krsqk:
Given the wording about "combat Groups," it may not be referring to ships set on Break Formation. Then again, I could just be doing some wishful thinking.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I think this was question before when they released the history of fixes. But I can't remember what it was. Maybe a Beta tester can stop by here and let us know again what it means. I certainly hope it does not mean that they do not break formation anymore. That would suck!

[Mephisto]

"Break formation" is still working as you know it. The "combat group" thing is misleading and is only a description of what caused the bug. This bug resulted in your ships attacking a planet even if they had the express order not to. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Puke]

i hope they get the fix in for component mounts of weapon type 'any'

[capnq]

&ltsigh&gt We already had this conversation. Bugs in v1.78? {link} (http://www.shrapnelgames.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=007383#000011)

[SamuraiProgrammer]

1.82 # 7

WHOOOHOOOO!!!!!

[God Emperor]

Looking forward to changes 1.82 #2 and #7.....

[PvK]

Originally posted by Mephisto:
"Break formation" is still working as you know it. The "combat group" thing is misleading and is only a description of what caused the bug. This bug resulted in your ships attacking a planet even if they had the express order not to. Nothing more, nothing less.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">So, you've tested that it's still possible to have a fleet with ships set to break formation, and those ships will then use their design's strategy on a per-ship basis, instead of the fleet strategy?

PvK

[KirbyEF]

I have a suggestion for the next patch (one I'm sure the PBW would appreiate):

Every turn, the turns get sent to the host and it indicates that it recieves each of the players turns. You have to wait until the host hits the turn button to got to the next turn.

I was wondering if there was a way to add an options section for the host TCP/IP and the ablitity to select and automatic turn processing after all players have sent in their turns? It would make multi-player much more enjoyable.

Also, having the option for a tactical combat (some-sort-of instant messenger screen where players could interact for that combat) would be a great addition.
Having the control of the ships during combat can really help sometimes.

KirbyEF

[Mephisto]

Originally posted by PvK:
So, you've tested that it's still possible to have a fleet with ships set to break formation, and those ships will then use their design's strategy on a per-ship basis, instead of the fleet strategy?PvK<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes. "Break formation" still works the way we know it.

[ December 31, 2002, 00:03: Message edited by: Mephisto ]

[mottlee]

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ANY WORD YET???? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Mephisto]

Don't expect anything before the end of the month.

[Cirvol]

Mephisto http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

thx so much for the info man!

you have no idea how eagerly we await the patch...

maybe one other thing you might want to add, i know a lot of us in big pbw games could use...

SAVE TURN - currently, you must finish an entire turn, hit end turn, and then you're left with your turn file... i know many people spend more than 1 sitting doing their turns, and this has led to many extra hours of cpu power on ;p

help us save energy http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

if not this patch, can you indicate if you've thought about this?

thx in advance

[Cirvol]

since we're on the topic of patches ;p

has a decision to balance religous talismans been made yet?

how about making them +99% to hit or something?
they really are overpowered, unfair, and unbalancing compared to other racial techs

i think there is a general agreement here about this issue, i'm sure you've noticed? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

[Arkcon]

Originally posted by Cirvol:
how about making them +99% to hit or something
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">At the risk of being a total mensch, would you really notice the 1%. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

[tesco samoa]

i would rather that the talisman stay the way it is.

Leave that up to the mods for changing.

We do not want our modding abilities to be removed...

[Ragnarok]

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
i would rather that the talisman stay the way it is.

Leave that up to the mods for changing.

We do not want our modding abilities to be removed...<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes I agree. Keep it the way it is and mod it differently. You could mod it to cost more. Or to take up more hull space. Or both. Having it cost more and take up more space would in effect balance it. Especially if it were to go from being 50kt to like 125kt or something like that.

[mottlee]

Thanks guys http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif will try to hold breath till out http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[Phoenix-D]

"At the risk of being a total mensch, would you really notice the 1%."

Yes. Because now ECM could do something against the talisman, and so could distance/stealth/defensiveness/etc.

Phoenix-D

[Q]

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
"At the risk of being a total mensch, would you really notice the 1%."

Yes. Because now ECM could do something against the talisman, and so could distance/stealth/defensiveness/etc.

Phoenix-D<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That would simply reduce the religious talisman to a little bit more potent combat sensor and an ability in the game would be removed!
I sorry to say this again but I am completely against removing any abilities from the game.
I have the impression that more and more people forget that the most important feature of SE IV is that you can modify it yourself. Therefore I agree with the proposal of Ragnorak.

[ January 05, 2003, 07:18: Message edited by: Q ]

[Despotic Fiend]

I'd like to see a confirm dialog added to the savegame menu - you have no idea how pissed off I've gotten from the many times I've accidentally saved over one of my games that I was on turn 2700.8 or some such because there ISN'T a dialog box for it and my mouse jammed while I'm going hyper from 3 days no sleep and masive quantities of no-doz just to play up that high....

[Mephisto]

At the risk of being a total mensch...[/QB]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Just curious, what does "mensch" used in this way mean?

[Arkcon]

Originally posted by Mephisto:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">At the risk of being a total mensch...<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Just curious, what does "mensch" used in this way mean?[/QB]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">mensch: polite term for one who is a constant kvetsh, particularly an over formal one; a stuffy complainer
example:
"Sorry to mensch, but if you're done with the hedge trimmer, could you pop it in the post"

[ January 05, 2003, 15:20: Message edited by: Arkcon ]

[Phoenix-D]

That would simply reduce the religious talisman to a little bit more potent combat sensor and an ability in the game would be removed!"

Changing the way the talisman works in the standard game wouldn't have to affect mods. Just change the ability given to the talisman to the same as the combat sensor ability, and leave the "always hit" ability intact for modders to use.

Phoenix-D

[Mephisto]

Originally posted by Arkcon:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Mephisto:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">At the risk of being a total mensch...<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Just curious, what does "mensch" used in this way mean?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">mensch: polite term for one who is a constant kvetsh, particularly an over formal one; a stuffy complainer
example:
"Sorry to mensch, but if you're done with the hedge trimmer, could you pop it in the post"[/QB]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Thanks! Because in German Mensch = Human.

[Puke]

Originally posted by g3n3r4l3n1gm4:
I'd like to see a confirm dialog added to the savegame menu - you have no idea how pissed off I've gotten from the many times I've accidentally saved over one of my games that I was on turn 2700.8 or some such because there ISN'T a dialog box for it and my mouse jammed while I'm going hyper from 3 days no sleep and masive quantities of no-doz just to play up that high....<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">there is a backup directory where se4 keeps your Last turn played, along with the current turn for each game. in \temp off of the main se4 directory.

[Fyron]

And, there is always the Autosave feature. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Gryphin]

g3n3r4l3n1gm4 while I agree this would be nice, I would like to see it simply default to creating a new name. Those "1:00 in the morning mistakes" can ruin your whole night.
To save myself from myself I currently save each game to its own folder. Had to learn that the hard way.

[PvK]

Save during simultaneous mode games has been requested many times. I requested it during the original beta. I think MM knows we'd love to have it, but I suppose it must present some problems versus the way the program is currently written. Too bad, because ya it makes it hard to get through the long turns in developed games. Let MM know though what your most wanted features are - he's one of the most responsive developers.

PvK

[minipol]

Originally posted by SamuraiProgrammer:
1.82 # 7

WHOOOHOOOO!!!!!<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yep, that is the only really big annoyance i have with SEIV. Glad to see it's solved.
kewlness!

[couslee]

why not add an auto save at the end of the PBW turn?

I have no idea what I am talking about. I only have the demo and my CD has been shipped but not recieved yet. But, if in PBW when a player hits/clicks/whatever the "I am done, send my turn to the host" message/box/link/whatever, at that point save the game. that way if a reload is necessary, you don't have to do everything all over again. (IE "PBW/MP-autosave" file name).

Since we are on the topic though, I have seen a lot of things present in the demo I would like to see fixed. If they have been fixed in the most recently released patch for the full Version, then goodie. If not, their persual for consideration would be appreciated. Some I consider bugs, others are just wants. My list so far is:

1. Enemy units warp past SAT defended wormholes. I had a wormhole defended of the enemy side with some SATs. When the enemy entered the sector, I got the combat screen, but the enemy ship used a "don't get hurt" type of movement. When the combat was over, the enemy ship appeared on my side of the wormhole. It made it through the wormhole after combat was finished and I think that was fubar.
2. I wouyld like to see the option to force a ship in combat to break formation and not auto move around when the lead ship is moved. As it is now, I am begining to hate the fleet combat system and I have not even recieved the cd yet. an option under "orders" to force remove it from formation would be nice. Also, if i select a ship other than the lead ship and move it one space (IE 3 available) then DON'T automaticly change the ship selected to another one. i had a reason for putting it there, and the continous bouncing around in the combat screen is a headache. I have pretty much quit using fleets for this reason.
3. Have hot keys in combat for "next unit with movement points remaining" and "center window on currently selected unit" (if these are in the game already, I have not found them). I tried the "c" key for center and found the capture ship option (nice) though.
4. you get ripped off if you mix engine types. Say I can put 6 engines on a design. The first engine added is a photon type (+2 movement). All the rest of the photon engines added do not give additional movement. That is fine, but if for the 2nd through 6th engine I place Ion3 engines, I lose the extra movement points. I was trying to limit the mineral cost of the ship considering the photons are lots more expensive than the ion ones.
5. On the designs screen, there is a button to upgrade a paticular unit. it would be nice if when there is no upgradeable parts, you got an edit stating that. IE "there is currently nothing to upgrade on this design".
6. Allow editing of prototype designs even if some are already in the queues. Not necessarily referring to ones partially built, but ones that are a new design, and after looking at the "turns to build" (or whatever) you decide to edit the new design. having to go back and remove all the ones you just placed in the queue, just so you can change one component is a pain. Also I would like to be able to delete a prototype design (provided none are in the queue) instead of having to obsolete it and waiting for turn x.9 to get rid of it.
7. On the ship "design detail", show the total maintenance cost. It might be a factor in the design (duh, guys).
8. the ability to move the boxes around (click and drag). I don't care if I can resize them or not, but would like to be able to scoot them over a bit at times. IE, when making player notes regarding a system, I might want to note something like "3 stars, 1 asteroid 232/312/375" referring to the minerals in the asteroid belt. But the notes box covers this information on the main game screen. so it write it down, then open the notes box, then type the info info... that is a hassle imo.
9. When you click "end turn" you can get a message of confirmation. it would be nice if there were also a message that could be recieved when "you do not have enough minerals to complete the queue orders".
10. When your using the empire queue list(f7), have the main screen re-center on the planet that you selected. Similar to the way it works when you click on a planet from the "colonies" screen (f5).
11. WP stats/strategy incomplete. In the design window, with a current WP design selected, and the button for "stats/strategy" selected, the screen shows zero for enemy tonnage destroyed. this is not accurate. It works fine for SATs, but not WPs.
12. I would like to see the negative happiness factors on the planet detail. My planets have gone from "happy" to "indifferent" and I would like to know why.
13. What is the reason for an AI counter proposal of an "unavailable technology" and an "unavailable planet" in return for the organics I previously offered? This should not even happen in the game imo.
14. Limit the technology list to offer the AI to items they don't have. IE, if they HAVE rock colonization, then don't list that when making your offer. Also, on the want tech list, don't show tech I already have.
15. I would like the ability to transfer supplies from one ship to another. Say I have a colony ship comming from one direction and a light crusier comming from the other direction. they meet at the planet I am going to colonize. I would like to be able to transfer the remaining supplies from the colony ship to the other one before giving the coloniz order. One may be mostly full, the other may be nearly empty. Likewise, that would make supply ship designs work as well. (an escort with only engines and supply storage could transfer surplus supplies to the ships in the fleet). Those who have played STARS! know what I am talking about. Alternately, if I add the supply ship to a fleet, the supplies go into the supply pool. But if I then remove the ship from the fleet, the supplies "delivered" stay on the ship removed. It would be acceptable if the supplies from the pool were evenly divided between the ships being removed from the fleet and the number of ships remaining in the fleet. (IE 5 ships in the fleet, 100k supplies in the pool. remove 2 ships. 60k supplies remain in the pool and each ship removed gets 20k supplies each.
16. The 3 next/previous buttons could be lit when there are next selections to consider. for example, the ship icon could be green when there are ships remaining with movement points, same for the fleets icon. Since the next button skips ships/fleets with no movement remaining, a lite would make it easy to tell at a glance. The colony icon could be lit when there are empty queues.
17. When using the "next colony" button, what part of next colony didn't the game get? it does select the next system with a colony in it, but if there are SATs, ships or moons present, you have to select the colony again. This is an extra, tedious step. ALSO, when selecting the next colony, the detail/facility/cargo tabs reset to the detail selection. I would like to see it remain on the previously selected choice. meaning, if I am looking at a facilities list for one colony, when I select the next planet arrow I still want the facility tab to be selected.
18. it would be nice if the system had the Last visited info displayed. IE, I visit a system but decide to not leave a unit there to monitor traffic. It now will show as explored when selected in the galaxy window. I would like something along the lines of "this information is 15 turns old" or "system Last visited on stardate 2404.9". this could be displayed underneath the system name in the upper left corner. It could also show red if it has been more than ten turns since Last visited, but color coding is not necessary, just a nice addition.
19. Allow one engine on space stations. Since it is listed as a ship, why not? Being able to move it one square per turn makes more sence than having to build a construction ship and move that to where you want to build one and then building it there. Like some little ship could carry enough material to completly build a space station without having to make multiple trips. yeah, right. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif
20. Nix the confirmation edit when you selected the attack order. I can understand it if you choose the "move to" button and the path puts you in a battle situation. But if i select the "attack" order, why does it ask me again if I want to enter that sector with enemy ships. Hello, was it not listening the first time? What part of "attack" didn't it understand. Also, turning this warning off is not listed in the empire options like most of the other warning the game can give. at least let me turn it off.
21. Why do you lose construction accumulated when re-ordering the build queue? this is dumb. sorry, you have to destroy that partially built mine before you can build a ship on the other side of town. absurd. ESP since you retain research points accumulated when re-ordering the tech choices. It's bad enough that excess construction don't roll over to the next project in line. But having both is too much construction penalty IMNSHO.
22. No construction surplus rollover? It does for reasearch, why not construction.
23. have some picture options for your designs. say a choice of 3 or 4 pictures for each ship size. Again, those that have played STARS! know what i am talking about. it can't be that hard to program in. (IE escort1.gif,escort2.gif. .gif meaning whatever file type they used in the game. don't get picky)
24. Some sort of mineral alchemy would be nice. even if it is a small amount. just something to put in the queues of those planets that you can't build anything else with. like 10 to 100 of each mineral/organics/radioactives per turn. the amount could be a racial trait, or just limit it to 50 or 100. call it alchemy, or a recycling program, whatever. most cities have some sort of program like this so it is not out of the realm of reality. Recycle prgrams, comunity compost heaps, and old car batteries and used oil reclamation about cover the 3 resources in the game. lol

OK, thats it for my list. I know this is a long post and my appreciations to those patient enough to have read throught it. And many thanks in advance to those who reply to any of them.

(whew) http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

[Graeme Dice]

For starters, the current released Version is 1.78, which is a large number of patches away from the demo.

Originally posted by couslee:
1. Enemy units warp past SAT defended wormholes. I had a wormhole defended of the enemy side with some SATs.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The ships would have appeared right on top of the warppoint, and right next to your satellittes. If they couldn't destroy it before they ran away, then yes, they would be able to get into your system, because those satellittes aren't going to chase them around.


2. I wouyld like to see the option to force a ship in combat to break formation and not auto move around when the lead ship is moved.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Go into your strategies menu under empire options. Select the strategy that you want your fleet to use. Select launching, and pick ships to break formation. They will then follow their individual design type strategies instead of the fleet strategy.


4. you get ripped off if you mix engine types. Say I can put 6 engines on a design. The first engine added is a photon type (+2 movement).<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That's +2 bonus movement, not +2 movement. Otherwise ships with 6 quantum engines would be running around at speeds of 20+ which is game-breakingly fast.

All the rest of the photon engines added do not give additional movement. That is fine, but if for the 2nd through 6th engine I place Ion3 engines, I lose the extra movement points.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Part of the movement rules is that all engines must be the same type for engine bonus movement to be applied.

6. Allow editing of prototype designs even if some are already in the queues.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This would probably break simultaneous movement games.

7. On the ship "design detail", show the total maintenance cost. It might be a factor in the design (duh, guys).<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The maintenance cost can be seen after you click create design, but it would be nice to see it before hand.

10. When your using the empire queue list(f7), have the main screen re-center on the planet that you selected. Similar to the way it works when you click on a planet from the "colonies" screen (f5).<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I would definetly not want this. I want my currently selected ship to stay selected through almost anything.

14. Limit the technology list to offer the AI to items they don't have. IE, if they HAVE rock colonization, then don't list that when making your offer. Also, on the want tech list, don't show tech I already have.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">For offers, that's far too much intelligence information to give someone for no effort.

It would be acceptable if the supplies from the pool were evenly divided between the ships being removed from the fleet and the number of ships remaining in the fleet.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">They are.


19. Allow one engine on space stations. Since it is listed as a ship, why not? Being able to move it one square per turn makes more sence than having to build a construction ship and move that to where you want to build one and then building it there.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Why exactly? There's no reason for a construction yard to require an immobile station, which is what bases are treated as in the game. You could always just add a vehicle with the same stats as a base and the ability to add engines.

Like some little ship could carry enough material to completly build a space station without having to make multiple trips. yeah, right. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Civilian transport is completely automated in this game. A ship does not need to carry resources because they are delivered to it.

22. No construction surplus rollover? It does for reasearch, why not construction.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'd like an option for this in the settings.txt file. I want to be able to set ships to be built more than one per yard in my mod.


23. have some picture options for your designs. say a choice of 3 or 4 pictures for each ship size.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">\races\pictures has every picture available to be changed if you want to.

[Fyron]

3. Have hot keys in combat for "next unit with movement points remaining" and "center window on currently selected unit" (if these are in the game already, I have not found them). I tried the "c" key for center and found the capture ship option (nice) though.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hit the Spacebar. It works in combat and out of combat too. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Hit the Help button (F1) and then look in the Hotkeys tab.

18. it would be nice if the system had the Last visited info displayed. IE, I visit a system but decide to not leave a unit there to monitor traffic. It now will show as explored when selected in the galaxy window. I would like something along the lines of "this information is 15 turns old" or "system Last visited on stardate 2404.9". this could be displayed underneath the system name in the upper left corner. It could also show red if it has been more than ten turns since Last visited, but color coding is not necessary, just a nice addition.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That would be a great feature, but it would require the savegame files to be a lot larger. And I mean a lot. This is bad for MP games for Users on dial-up modems.

21. Why do you lose construction accumulated when re-ordering the build queue? this is dumb. sorry, you have to destroy that partially built mine before you can build a ship on the other side of town. absurd. ESP since you retain research points accumulated when re-ordering the tech choices. It's bad enough that excess construction don't roll over to the next project in line. But having both is too much construction penalty IMNSHO.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">In an ancient Version of the game, you would maintain the construction points already accumulated towards building a project when changing to a new one. But, that was easily exploitable, and so was removed. A system similar to Research and Intel was in SE3 though. MM tried to do something different with SE4, but that part didn't work. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I do agree that it would be good to keep the construction done on a project just like Research and Intel Projects, but it is too late to code that into SE4. It might make its way into SE5 though. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

24. Some sort of mineral alchemy would be nice. even if it is a small amount. just something to put in the queues of those planets that you can't build anything else with. like 10 to 100 of each mineral/organics/radioactives per turn. the amount could be a racial trait, or just limit it to 50 or 100. call it alchemy, or a recycling program, whatever. most cities have some sort of program like this so it is not out of the realm of reality. Recycle prgrams, comunity compost heaps, and old car batteries and used oil reclamation about cover the 3 resources in the game. lol
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">When you get the full game, research Chemistry 2, then Resource Manipulation. You get a Resource Converter, which can convert resources from one type to another. It doesn't use up any build queues.

[ January 08, 2003, 00:48: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[geoschmo]

18. it would be nice if the system had the Last visited info displayed. IE, I visit a system but decide to not leave a unit there to monitor traffic. It now will show as explored when selected in the galaxy window. I would like something along the lines of "this information is 15 turns old" or "system Last visited on stardate 2404.9". this could be displayed underneath the system name in the upper left corner. It could also show red if it has been more than ten turns since Last visited, but color coding is not necessary, just a nice addition.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That would be a great feature, but it would require the savegame files to be a lot larger. And I mean a lot. This is bad for MP games for Users on dial-up modems.

Actually, I am not so sure it would make the savegame all that much bigger. All the information is there anyway. It has to be otherwise you couldn't have everybodies turn running off of the same .gam file. All that would be needed would be a couple of more bits for each system to say how old the view is for each system for each empire. The coding for the actual color coding or symbols or whatever would be in the game executable, not in the savegame.

Geoschmo

[Fyron]

Geo, it doesn't store the info of what is in the system on old turns in the savegame file. If it did, they would always get larger. But as players start to be eliminated, the savegame files get smaller.

[geoschmo]

Good point. I was thinking of real time info, but we can't exactly be giving that away now can we. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[Arkcon]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">18. it would be nice if the system had

*snip*

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That would be a great feature, but it would require the savegame files to be a lot larger. And I mean a lot. This is bad for MP games for Users on dial-up modems.

Actually, I am not so sure it would make the savegame all that much bigger. All the information is there anyway. It has to be otherwise you couldn't have everybodies turn running off of the same .gam file. All that would be needed would be a couple of more bits for each system to say how old the view is for each system for each empire. The coding for the actual color coding or symbols or whatever would be in the game executable, not in the savegame.

Geoschmo</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If you want to make it simpler, you don't have to keep track of every ship and sat. Just remember what planets an opponent had colonized. Sure maybe one was just glassed and now you have an opprotunity to colonize ... but really is it worth haveing the colonization minister trying repeatedly on the off chance that happens. Some systems you just don't care about.

[Gryphin]

couslee,
A lot of good ideas. I like quite a few of them. In particular having the maintance cost displayed during the design process.
Just an idea > Yes losing a partialy built ship because you have to build something else is regretable. There are many aspects this game, (and many others) that don't make, "rational sence". They "seem" dumb. There is almost always a reason weather it is play ballance or coding limitaton, or just plain practical.

[couslee]

thanks guys.

RE-18: I am not saying to save the details. I have no problem with the way that is now. You enter a system, you see all the current plkanet date, other ships present, ect.. When you leave the system, all that info disappears and it looks like an empty system, irregardless of planets already colonized, ect. No need to change that. All I was saying, was under the system name an indication of when I Last viewed it would be nice. The game already shows the system now as explored. Make it show explored on what date. that should not cause an big increase in save file size.

#19, Quote reply:
"Why exactly? There's no reason for a construction yard to require an immobile station, which is what bases are treated as in the game. You could always just add a vehicle with the same stats as a base and the ability to add engines."
I may not be putting a construction yard on one. I may want to design a remote mining platform and be able to send it to a nearby asteroid field. Even if it was prohibited from using warp points would be fine. Or I may want to design a station as a defensive or repair base. With one engine, i could build it at the planet and slowly move it to where I want it placed.. It just makes more sence than building a ship with ship yard abilities so i can go build a ship yard..... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

#4 Quote reply:
"That's +2 bonus movement, not +2 movement. Otherwise ships with 6 quantum engines would be running around at speeds of 20+ which is game-breakingly fast."
I understand that, that is not what I am saying. I would not want ships with that many movement points. design a ship, put one bonus movement engine on it. You see it has 3 movement. Add one Ion engine and that drops to two movement. You lose the bonus movement when mixing engines. All I was saying, was allow the mixing of engines without being penalized.

#14 Quote reply:
"For offers, that's far too much intelligence information to give someone for no effort."
How so? if both of us have Rock colonization, there is no reason to have it show on the tech list when offering a trade. Likewise, if I have rock colonization, there is no need for it to be on the tech list for the "request" side. I can understand you point regarding the offer side, knowing what you have that they don't could be construed as undue intel. But there is NO reason to be able to request a tech I already have. all that does is clutter the list.

thrilled to know #15 is in the full Version. At least in part. That don't work in the demo.

back to my search for info. can't find what I need regarding captured ships. (I captured one, that has organic weaponry. Now what do I do with it? retrofit command only brings up a list of my designs. How do I change the cheap engines, and retain the weapons. AND/OR I would like to learn those organic component abilities, but that don't seem possible in the demo, or I am missing something)

[Phoenix-D]

"#19, Quote reply:
"Why exactly? There's no reason for a construction yard to require an immobile station, which is what bases are treated as in the game. You could always just add a vehicle with the same stats as a base and the ability to add engines."
I may not be putting a construction yard on one. I may want to design a remote mining platform and be able to send it to a nearby asteroid field. Even if it was prohibited from using warp points would be fine. Or I may want to design a station as a defensive or repair base. With one engine, i could build it at the planet and slowly move it to where I want it placed.. It just makes more sence than building a ship with ship yard abilities so i can go build a ship yard....."

Not really. If you need to build something, but don't have the tools, what do you do? Make the tools. It makes perfect sense to me.

"#4 Quote reply:
"That's +2 bonus movement, not +2 movement. Otherwise ships with 6 quantum engines would be running around at speeds of 20+ which is game-breakingly fast."
I understand that, that is not what I am saying. I would not want ships with that many movement points. design a ship, put one bonus movement engine on it. You see it has 3 movement. Add one Ion engine and that drops to two movement. You lose the bonus movement when mixing engines. All I was saying, was allow the mixing of engines without being penalized."

Balance issue. This can be modded, but it would allow you to get Quantum speed but only paying the Ion price.

#14 Quote reply:
"For offers, that's far too much intelligence information to give someone for no effort."
How so? if both of us have Rock colonization, there is no reason to have it show on the tech list when offering a trade. Likewise, if I have rock colonization, there is no need for it to be on the tech list for the "request" side. I can understand you point regarding the offer side, knowing what you have that they don't could be construed as undue intel. But there is NO reason to be able to request a tech I already have. all that does is clutter the list."

Actually there is a reason. Namely, multiple level techs, and bluffing. If you have ship construction 3, and your ally has 5, you certainly want it listed for a trade!

"back to my search for info. can't find what I need regarding captured ships. (I captured one, that has organic weaponry. Now what do I do with it? retrofit command only brings up a list of my designs. How do I change the cheap engines, and retain the weapons. AND/OR I would like to learn those organic component abilities, but that don't seem possible in the demo, or I am missing something)"

The answer here to all is "you can't". Racial tech- which is what Organic tech is- can't be captured.

Phoenix-D

[couslee]

Ok. thanks, didn't know that racial techs could not be captured. That makes sence.
I would not want the better engines to be the same price as the cheaper ion ones
You can bluff? Does the AI ever fall for it? And how do you know if they have level 5 construction. or is bluffing a total guessing game. (is AI tech areas achieved an intel project?)
But I do have the tools, they are planet side with the current engine designs for all the other "ships" and a ship yard is present. Tis ok to disagree. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ January 08, 2003, 08:10: Message edited by: couslee ]

[Fyron]

Re: #4

That is not how they are supposed to work. You get extra movement if all of the engines are Quantum Engines (for example). Think of it this way: mixing Quantum and Ion engines is like mixing a coal powered engine with a nuclear engine. Is it going to do anything better for you? Probably not. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[couslee]

Thats ok. I don't have a problem with not mixing engines. Mixing would be mineraly less intensive, but it's not THAT much of a deal. Just an observation.

since I can't scrap and analyse the organic componented unit, how do I retro fit the Ion1 engines off of it? or can I.

[Arkcon]

Originally posted by couslee:

since I can't scrap and analyse the organic componented unit, how do I retro fit the Ion1 engines off of it? or can I.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, you can't upgrade the engines and leave the organic components. Your new design with advanced engines can only have components you can make.

As a result, the AI pychic races are often flying around with shard cannon destroyers or temporal burst light cruisers, mounting ion engine 1's ... while everyone else has fleets of quantum engine dreadnoughts.

Psychic is not much of a bonus for the AI

[Arkcon]

Originally posted by couslee:
You can bluff? Does the AI ever fall for it? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If the AI likes you... they will take anything. If the AI doesn't they'll refuse gifts.

AI diplomacy is not much of a challange in SE4, there is not much discussion on the subject.

[capnq]

why not add an auto save at the end of the PBW turn? <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It's already there; in fact, you can't manually save simultaneous game turns. When you hit "End Turn", the game is saved; you have to manually upload or e-mail the resulting file to the PBW server, unless you're using the PBW Real-Time Client. In the design window, with a current WP design selected, and the button for "stats/strategy" selected, the screen shows zero for enemy tonnage destroyed. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">There were several bugs in the "tonnage destroyed" tally; I'm not sure if they've all been squashed. I would like to see the negative happiness factors on the planet detail. My planets have gone from "happy" to "indifferent" and I would like to know why. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The factors that affect happiness are in Happiness.txt and the various &ltraceName&gt_AI_Anger.txt files, but interpreting those files is a bit arcane.

[ January 08, 2003, 22:46: Message edited by: capnq ]

[Slick]

*Slick fires a probe in the general direction of the beta testers and eagerly awaits telemetry on scans for the new patch*

[Mephisto]

*but receives nothing new, unfortunately...* http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

[Slick]

Originally posted by Mephisto:
*but receives nothing new, unfortunately...* http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">*Slick leaves the receiving unit on and returns to his captain's chair mumbling something about those cheap probes made by foreign manufacturers and has to restrain himself from charging up weapons*

[mottlee]

Originally posted by Slick:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Mephisto:
*but receives nothing new, unfortunately...* http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">*Slick leaves the receiving unit on and returns to his captain's chair mumbling something about those cheap probes made by foreign manufacturers and has to restrain himself from charging up weapons*</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">LOL is the a "life form" there?

[Baron Munchausen]

Wait, there's something happening. The probe is returning data....

It's beta 1.83 just released an hour ago!

[ January 10, 2003, 21:00: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

[mottlee]

HOT DANG! just wait till I get home http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[Captain Kwok]

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
Wait, there's something happening. The probe is returning data....

It's beta 1.83 just released an hour ago!<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hey! What about posting history.txt!

[Fyron]

Post post post! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Us wannabe beta testers need whatever fix we can get! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

[ January 10, 2003, 21:44: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[couslee]

Regarding the division of supplies from the fleet pool amongst the ships being removed from the fleet. Yes, it does work, but, it does not work if you add and remove a supply carrier in the same turn. The clarification being only those ship that were in the fleet at the begining of the turn.
I STILL would like the ability to manipulate the supplies between the ships in the same system. IE my frig with nothing but supply hardpoints and engines arrives with 5/6 movement remaining. I transfer the surplus supplies to the other ships in the system, some get more supplies, others get less. The colony ship get just enough to make it to the planet it is going to colonize, the damaged bomber gets just enough to make it to the nearest supply depot with frig, and the rest go to the fleet. (this is example of what I am talking about)

I found a bug in combat. If you have a direct fire weapon and it is in range of the planet (99%) but the whole planet is not in the view box, the guns fire but have NO effect. (no sound either, they all just instantly show as fired).

Satellite launching in combat (another bug imo). Why the guessing game? I want to know where they are going to be dropped. this bullcrap of one time it's next to the ship, another time it's behind it, or diagonally. This should be fixed. Have it ALWAYS launch from the nose, and in the direction of travel, or ALWAYS launch into the square the transport just came from. if there are sat already in that sopt, stack them or dis-allow the launch, not toss them out the window to land where ever the wind blows. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif I want to be able to place my SATs out of range of the direct fire WP but still be close enough to launch my missles from them. Only time I lose these things is when the game drops them on the wrong side. I had a transport that could carry 9 SATs, and launch upto 6 per combat turn. I moved the ship to the point just outside of the WP reach and launched 5 of the sats. The ship was pointing in a direst east-west direction. The SATs appeared directly south of the transport. Next turn I move the ship back, up and over so it is pointing directly east west, and the square directly south of it is empty. I launch the remaining SATs and they appear at the nose of the transport, in range of the planet WP. Grrrrrrrr.
Anyone figured out what the drop pattern is? so I know where my SATs will show until this gets fixed (if ever)?

[capnq]

If you have a direct fire weapon and it is in range of the planet (99%) but the whole planet is not in the view box, the guns fire but have NO effect. (no sound either, they all just instantly show as fired) <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This is a well known artifact of the damage system. You don't get the explosion until something on the planet accumulates enough damage to be destroyed. When something does blow, the total accumulated damage will display*, rather than the damage from the Last shot.

[Edit] Oops, I misread what you were describing. Any shot that "lands" offscreen has no sound effect; neither does a shot that's launched from offscreen. I think they still record the damage against the target, though.

*(This is assuming you're running the game at 1024x768; the range and damage indicators don't display in 800x600.)

[ January 10, 2003, 22:38: Message edited by: capnq ]

[couslee]

Correct, I am talking about shots that land off screen. They do NO damage. I checked this out, by looking at the population of a planet that had previously had it's facilities destroyed. There were no WP in place, the only targets were population. Upon firing 4 depleted uranium cannon IVs at 99% accuracy and half the planet not in the view, no reduction in population was done. upon firing the next volly from another duplicate ship but with the full planet in view, damage was calculated correctly.
This paticular planet was "small" but as you know the planet uses a certain size box. Say your attacking from the south side. If the north row of the planet box is not in the view, the volley will fail. Even tho it "looks" like the planet is in view.

[mottlee]

OK So where is it??? not in D/L section at Srapnel http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

[Ed Kolis]

...where is WHAT? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

[Suicide Junkie]

Beta Patches generally are not available for public download...

[mottlee]

Next patch http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Was only a Beta???!!!!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif

[ January 10, 2003, 23:22: Message edited by: mottlee ]

[Slick]

Originally posted by mottlee:
Next patch http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Was only a Beta???!!!!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, until the Beta testers find/report all the bugs and it is officially released to the masses.

[mottlee]

Guess I need to READ the Posts better OOOPS http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

[tesco samoa]

Too bad we did not have a read only to those threads...

Or they should switch up the beta testers http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[Mephisto]

Originally posted by couslee:
Correct, I am talking about shots that land off screen. They do NO damage. I checked this out, by looking at the population of a planet that had previously had it's facilities destroyed. There were no WP in place, the only targets were population. Upon firing 4 depleted uranium cannon IVs at 99% accuracy and half the planet not in the view, no reduction in population was done. upon firing the next volly from another duplicate ship but with the full planet in view, damage was calculated correctly.
This paticular planet was "small" but as you know the planet uses a certain size box. Say your attacking from the south side. If the north row of the planet box is not in the view, the volley will fail. Even tho it "looks" like the planet is in view.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Post it to MM so he can fix it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Mephisto]

Version 1.83:
1. Fixed - The Jraenar battleship portrait was 1 pixel to large.
2. Fixed - Intro screen graphic stretches to the screen size.
3. Fixed - "Any" and "None" were being confused in CompEnhancement.txt for
the field "Weapon Type Requirement".
4. Fixed - Weapon Mounts were not showing in the expected benefits list when
looking at a Tech Area report.
5. Fixed - AI will now use Master Computers on his ships correctly.
6. Fixed - Added more slots to all of the formations to keep ships together
better in combat. New formations thanks to Imperator Fyron.

[Slick]

*Takes back all the bad stuff he said about probes*

BTW, check out my shiny new avatar from the master!

Slick

[Fyron]

6. Fixed - Added more slots to all of the formations to keep ships together
better in combat. New formations thanks to Imperator Fyron.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Now if only that guy was a beta tester.... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[Phoenix-D]

5. Fixed - AI will now use Master Computers on his ships correctly."

Whohoo! Finnally possible to have the AI defend against Subverters.

Phoenix-D

[Q]

"5. Fixed - AI will now use Master Computers on his ships correctly."

Can you explain this a little further?
Will the AI use master computer when it is cheaper to use it for larger ships automatically or do you have to instruct it in the vehicle design file?

[ January 11, 2003, 05:51: Message edited by: Q ]

[Fyron]

It probably means that the AI won't throw a Bridge, LS and CQ on ship designs that don't have those in them (as they have a MC instead). http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[geoschmo]

I did some test's of the MC fix. The AI doesn't redesign the ships with MC as soon as it's researched. However it does redesign them with MC once it researches another tech, propulsion, ship construction, weapons. The new designs will ahve MC, even if that means the 40Kt MC I if that's all that's available.

If you dont' want the AI to do this, don't put comuters in the research queue I guess. The problem we were having was if you put computers in the research queue it still wouldn't use them unless you called for them specifically in the design. ANd if you called for them specifically in the design, it used them and the bridge, LS CQ comps.

This could cause money problems for some AI if they research computers too early in the game.

Geoschmo

[Captain Kwok]

I was hoping my requested target types would be included in patch 1.83 - rats!

[Q]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
I did some test's of the MC fix. The AI doesn't redesign the ships with MC as soon as it's researched. However it does redesign them with MC once it researches another tech, propulsion, ship construction, weapons. The new designs will ahve MC, even if that means the 40Kt MC I if that's all that's available.

If you dont' want the AI to do this, don't put comuters in the research queue I guess. The problem we were having was if you put computers in the research queue it still wouldn't use them unless you called for them specifically in the design. ANd if you called for them specifically in the design, it used them and the bridge, LS CQ comps.

This could cause money problems for some AI if they research computers too early in the game.

Geoschmo<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Thank you Geoschmo for this information.
So it is either always or never master computer for the AI. I doubt that this will help the AI because if he builds colonizers with master computers it will slow down the construction and therefore the expansion. Therefore as you said it is probably the best to avoud master computers for the AI at least till the late game.

[capnq]

Post it to MM so he can fix it.

HUH? I though that is what this thread was for. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">MM will see a bug report much sooner if you e-mail it directly. I'm pretty sure that Aaron reads his e-mail more often than he reads this forum.

Also, if he gets multiple e-mail reports (from different people) about the same bug, that gives him an indication of how high a priority fixing that bug should be.

[geoschmo]

Q, please note I did not trying playing with the design fiels to see if it's possible to force the AI to not use MC's on certain types of ships. So maybe there is hope yet. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Geoschmo

[Rexxx]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Q, please note I did not trying playing with the design fiels to see if it's possible to force the AI to not use MC's on certain types of ships. So maybe there is hope yet. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Geoschmo<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Does that mean that the AI will "automatically" use an MC instead of - or even worse in addition to - bridge and crew quarters? Even if I don't call for it in the design_creation file? What a waste of resources or farewell to robotoid factories.

Another question:
Fixed - "Crew ConVersion" damage type will work on all target types, again.

What does "all" mean: ships, fighters, sats, drones and planets?

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Rexxx:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by geoschmo:
Q, please note I did not trying playing with the design fiels to see if it's possible to force the AI to not use MC's on certain types of ships. So maybe there is hope yet. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Geoschmo<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Does that mean that the AI will "automatically" use an MC instead of - or even worse in addition to - bridge and crew quarters? Even if I don't call for it in the design_creation file? What a waste of resources or farewell to robotoid factories.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Instead of, Yes. In addition too, No. That was the bug that was fixed. If you called for MC's it would add bridge and LS and CQ also. At least now it's only using MC. And yes, it will use them even if you don't call for them in design creation. However, as I said I haven't tried calling specifically for the regular comps to see if it will then NOT use the MC.

Please keep in mind, this is a beta patch. It has not been released yet. I am only posting this because someone asked specifically about this item. Sometimes things get added in a beta patch, don't work out the way they were intended, and get modified or replaced before the public patch is released. That's the reason for beta teams.

Geoschmo

[ January 12, 2003, 00:06: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[couslee]

Originally posted by Mephisto:
Post it to MM so he can fix it.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">HUH? I though that is what this thread was for. let the patch testers who read this forum take credit for finding it. I don't care. Right of authorship only applies for me in regards to my poetry. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Rexxx]

Please keep in mind, this is a beta patch. It has not been released yet. I am only posting this because someone asked specifically about this item. Sometimes things get added in a beta patch, don't work out the way they were intended, and get modified or replaced before the public patch is released. That's the reason for beta teams.

Geoschmo <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Thanks for your answer.
Well, just as you said in a previous post, there is hope yet. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

What exactly might be the intention behind making the MC a "must must have" component? It couldn't be the AS, its effects can be avoided by long range weapons and truly maximum weapon range strategies quite easily. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Rexxx:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
Please keep in mind, this is a beta patch. It has not been released yet. I am only posting this because someone asked specifically about this item. Sometimes things get added in a beta patch, don't work out the way they were intended, and get modified or replaced before the public patch is released. That's the reason for beta teams.

Geoschmo <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Thanks for your answer.
Well, just as you said in a previous post, there is hope yet. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

What exactly might be the intention behind making the MC a "must must have" component? It couldn't be the AS, its effects can be avoided by long range weapons and truly maximum weapon range strategies quite easily. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, it's just that exactly. It's to give the AI some chance against the Psychic races.

[Fyron]

AIs cannot adapt to races using AS. They will continue using the same strategies and designs they have been using. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Baron Munchausen]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Instead of, Yes. In addition too, No. That was the bug that was fixed. If you called for MC's it would add bridge and LS and CQ also. At least now it's only using MC. And yes, it will use them even if you don't call for them in design creation. However, as I said I haven't tried calling specifically for the regular comps to see if it will then NOT use the MC.

Please keep in mind, this is a beta patch. It has not been released yet. I am only posting this because someone asked specifically about this item. Sometimes things get added in a beta patch, don't work out the way they were intended, and get modified or replaced before the public patch is released. That's the reason for beta teams.

Geoschmo[/QB]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">But it doesn't actually USE the MC by default unless the design file calls for it, does it? I haven't played a new game yet, but I'm going to be ticked off if it now always uses MC in any design when it has the tech. We should be able to get the AI to build either way as we wish.

If it just removes the default Ship Control components when the MC is added, that's fine.

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
But it doesn't actually USE the MC by default unless the design file calls for it, does it? I haven't played a new game yet, but I'm going to be ticked off if it now always uses MC in any design when it has the tech. We should be able to get the AI to build either way as we wish.

If it just removes the default Ship Control components when the MC is added, that's fine.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ok, no offense guys, but this is the third time I have posted this now. YES, it uses MC by default, whether or not it's called for in the design file IF the AI researches it. If someone else on the beta team wants to take a look at it and post their results that would be great. I have made mistakes before. But I am pretty sure I am seeing it correctly.

Geoschmo

[Mephisto]

Thanks for holding the line, Geo, take a rest, I will see if I can hold them for a while. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
MC is always used if the AI has researched it, whether you want it or not. Yes, this makes some ships more expensive, then again it is a good defence against the AS (finally) and to be honest, when you build a dreadnaught, 1k more minerals or not doesn’t fix or break the AI designs. And don't forget the Ai can now use another weapon or a shield because it has more room in its ships and that makes them more combat potent. I think it is a good think MM finally fixed it. Granted, a line "Must have MC" would have been better but I just don't think MM will make great changes to the way all the design files out there work after such a long time.

[Rexxx]

Originally posted by Rollo:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Rexxx:
To repeat a previous question:

Version 1.81:
1. Fixed - "Crew ConVersion" damage type will work on all target types, again.

What does "all" exactly mean? ...<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That means a bug was fixed from a previous beta Version. I am not 100% sure, but IIRC crew conVersion didn't work on bases at one point or some such.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">According to the components.txt an AS only targets ships. Will that be changed, too?

[ January 12, 2003, 13:55: Message edited by: Rexxx ]

[Rollo]

In respect to target types bases are ships. There is no target type for bases. As far as I know, that has always been so.

Rollo

[ January 12, 2003, 16:36: Message edited by: Rollo ]

[geoschmo]

Here is what I believe the crew conVersion change is about. The stock AS only targets ships and bases, which are ships as Rollo says for targeting purposes.

At some point during a previous patch Malfador changed it so that even if someone added an AS weapon in a mod that could target fighters foir example, it would not work. The ability would only work against ships.

The change in the latest beta patch reverses that and puts it back to the way it was. The stock AS still only targets ships, but a modded AS can target units and it will work now.

Geoschmo

[Baron Munchausen]

Well then, I for one will definitely press MM to make the AI only install the MC when a line in the design file explicitly calls for it. It doesn't require any change to the format of the design files. All you have to do is make the AI smart enough to remove the default ship control components when it adds an MC, and let the AI modder put 'Master Computer' in the Misc. Abilities list if they want to for that particular design.

[Rexxx]

Rollo, Geoschmo:
Thanks for your answers. Good to know that the stock AS won't be changed.

Baron Munchausen:
Well, I will do the same.

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
Well then, I for one will definitely press MM to make the AI only install the MC when a line in the design file explicitly calls for it. It doesn't require any change to the format of the design files. All you have to do is make the AI smart enough to remove the default ship control components when it adds an MC, and let the AI modder put 'Master Computer' in the Misc. Abilities list if they want to for that particular design.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I think that is what was asked for originally with the bug report. Not sure why he chose to do it the way he did.

Geoschmo

[Mephisto]

He said that he always planned to have the AI use the MC when it becomes available. The bug was present from day one and he never came around to fix it.

[Rexxx]

To repeat a previous question:

Version 1.81:
1. Fixed - "Crew ConVersion" damage type will work on all target types, again.

What does "all" exactly mean?

Originally posted by Mephisto:
[QB]Thanks for holding the line, Geo, take a rest, I will see if I can hold them for a while. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">"Taming of the Shrew" in its modern form. Hey, we aren't that bad. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

MC is always used if the AI has researched it, whether you want it or not. Yes, this makes some ships more expensive, then again it is a good defence against the AS (finally) and to be honest, when you build a dreadnaught, 1k more minerals or not doesn’t fix or break the AI designs. And don't forget the Ai can now use another weapon or a shield because it has more room in its ships and that makes them more combat potent. I think it is a good think MM finally fixed it. Granted, a line "Must have MC" would have been better but I just don't think MM will make great changes to the way all the design files out there work after such a long time.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Good points but very bad news.

[Rollo]

Originally posted by Rexxx:
To repeat a previous question:

Version 1.81:
1. Fixed - "Crew ConVersion" damage type will work on all target types, again.

What does "all" exactly mean? ...<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That means a bug was fixed from a previous beta Version. I am not 100% sure, but IIRC crew conVersion didn't work on bases at one point or some such.

You have to remember that the bug fixes that are mentioned in the history must be seen in context of the beta Versions not the public Versions. So not all of them make sense when you read them and apply them the the currently released Version.
For example, I recall one bug fix that read something like "Fixed: troops could't capture planets". Now there was nothing wrong with planet capture in the public Version, but in a beta Version, it didn't work.

Rollo

[ January 12, 2003, 13:04: Message edited by: Rollo ]

[mottlee]

(Bump) still hopeing on word

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

[couslee]

couple of quick observations. if they have been addressed already, then no bigge.

I really would like to see how many tech/intel points have already beed accumulated towards a project.

I would like to see a third asterik planet type, maybe a blue asterik, that would indicate breathable atmosphere for captured "other breather" races. I was also wondering, but have not tried it our yet, if making a game selection of " can only colonize breatheable" and i capture some other breathers, will I be able to colonize their homeworld types. In this situation, a blue asterik indicator would be helpfull.

I know the mothballing of massive fleets are a topic of debate, so why not have a mothball limit based on the planet cargo space? just a thought.

[Fyron]

If you select "Can only colonize own atm or HW type", then you can only colonize your own type. You can not ever colonize other types. You can capture or trade for them though. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[couslee]

I assumed that with the "only colonize homeworld type" and that it would also exclude IE ice and gas if your rock. but the other selection only states "can only colonize breatheable." and they are breathable to a captured race. might have to start a game and check it out and see what is allowed with that choice. I just dislike that not too far into the game every heavenly body can be colonized. a "no-domes allowed" option would be nice. was hoping that is what that was.

[Fyron]

Colonize only breatheable means that you can only ever colonize planets of your race's own atmosphere type. If you are Hydrogen-breathing, you can only colonize Hydrogen planets, period. A colony ship with Oxygen-breathers can still only colonize a Hydrogen planet.

[Baron Munchausen]

But you can still capture other types of worlds even when the colonization restrictions are used. This actually makes planet capture a vital ability. This also leads to an interesting 'calculated strategy' problem. How many worlds do you let some rival settle before trying to conquer him? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif The more you let him settle, the more powerful he will be, but the more there is to conquer. Hmmm....

[Rollo]

The reason for component Groups vanishing, is that your don't have a component in that group available. IIRC the only component in the misc group is the medical bay. Repair belongs to the construction group.

Rollo

[capnq]

In Components.txt , the group a component is in is listed in the entry "General Group". As soon as you research a component from a particular group, that group's entry will reappear on the Repair Priorities screen.

Once a ship is picked to be repaired, the game will try to repair all of the damage on that ship before shifting to another ship. If it can't repair all the damage on one ship in one turn, then on the next turn it looks at the repair priorities again and may pick another ship.

[couslee]

Another oddity I would consider a bug....

When changing the repair priorities, not all the item move to the left side. some just vanish, never to be seen again? Like Misc. you can take it off the priority side, but it's not available to replace there. I had a situation where I wanted my repair bays to be repaired first, then the other stuff. thats when i noticed the vanishing items. Also, is Misc where the repair bays would be listed? the game don't have repair components listed seperatly. I removed all but misc, and I did get one repair bay fix, but it ignored the other repair bays on other ships and fixed some engines on the one it did repair the bay. Once that situation was over, then Misc would be stuck at the top and I wanted to basicly restore the previous priority list. I click on Misc to remove it, and it vanished as well. Hope they fix that.all choices should be either on the right or left, and not, some vanishing, some not

[couslee]

after opening the empire options, and selecting strategies then firing. You can't change the firing priorities.

it "looks" like you can, but it will not accept any changes. likewise, when creating a new one, you are stuck with the defualt it gives. If you try and change it, you get "click for priority one", then "click for priority two", but the only button at the bottom is cancel, and there is no other way out of that screen, so it reverts back to the firing priority given as the defualt one.

Either this needs to be fixed, or i am missing something.

[Q]

Originally posted by couslee:
after opening the empire options, and selecting strategies then firing. You can't change the firing priorities.

it "looks" like you can, but it will not accept any changes. likewise, when creating a new one, you are stuck with the defualt it gives. If you try and change it, you get "click for priority one", then "click for priority two", but the only button at the bottom is cancel, and there is no other way out of that screen, so it reverts back to the firing priority given as the defualt one.

Either this needs to be fixed, or i am missing something.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Just click the four choices you want in the order you want and the window will close automatically and your firing priority appears as you wanted.

[mottlee]

(Bump)

[couslee]

ok, I did that Q. it worked (of course). But i distinctly remember after selected the second choice it reverting back to the first choice, and not progressing to a third choice. maybe that first problem was while I had the demo. I don't know.
(cough)
NEVERMIND
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[Rexxx]

Sorry, but once more the MC topic.

I assume that the MC modifications will be implemented as Geoschmo described.

Let's say MCs are researched after battle ship tech is discovered. From that point on all ships (BBs and larger) will automatically come with a MC. So far, so bad. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

What will happen to smaller ships (after MC tech is researched) if they are retrofitted by an AI. Will a MC integrated automatically into the ship designs, too?

[ January 20, 2003, 20:38: Message edited by: Rexxx ]

[Phoenix-D]

"What will happen to smaller ships (after MC tech is researched) if they are retrofitted. Will a MC integrated automatically into the ship designs, too?"

If the AI is still using the smaller ships by that point, yes.

Phoenix-D

[Rexxx]

Thanks, Phoenix-D.
Wow, that was a quick answer, it surpassed my editing easily. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Fyron]

I thought AIs didn't retrofit ships?

[Mephisto]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
I thought AIs didn't retrofit ships?<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Sure it does. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif When there is a valid not obsolete design at hand and the ships have nothing do to, they will either retrofit or train at a training centre. Unfortunately, the Ai keeps its ships busy moving from system to system so it rarely retrofits or trains.

[Q]

The changes made in the next patch concerning master computers are important and I changed my mind about eliminating master computer completely from my games.
That the AI uses master computers now is great if the cost of master computers are reduced. Otherwise the construction time of small ships like colonizers increase too much. But this is very easy to modify.
My second change should prevent the doom of psychic races (the master computer makes the allegiance converter completely ineffective): I plan to make the master computer a racial technology and give it only to few (anorganic/mechanoid) races.

[mottlee]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
I thought AIs didn't retrofit ships?<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">My AI has a lot of 2 name class ships

[thorfrog]

Any eta on latest patch??

How about added features like palaces?

[tesco samoa]

2005 i believe...

Get new testers http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

please post any new updates please...

[Mephisto]

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
2005 i believe...

Get new testers http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

please post any new updates please...<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Oh, the problem are not the testers. You don't shoot the messenger, right? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
I would not hold my breath for new features like a palace think of how deep Aaron is in Starfury right now.

[tesco samoa]

K-M you know I am joking.

[couslee]

well, him being involved in star fury is fine.

One feature I would like to see, is an empire option to suspend each of the resource gathering facilities (empire wide). Say I have plenty of room for mineral and radioactive storage, but am maxed on organics. Currently, I have two choices. I can either let the farms continue depleting the resources and wasting the numbers, or scrap al the applicable facilites an have to rebuild them when I have need for them. An option to suspend would be nice.

[Rexxx]

Originally posted by Q:
That the AI uses master computers now is great if the cost of master computers are reduced. Otherwise the construction time of small ships like colonizers increase too much. But this is very easy to modify. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, that's a big "if". If not - just as you said - the "X" for expansion will getting very very small.

[couslee]

Well, another x.0 turn has rolled around, and I still have old ship designs showing up on the non-hidden list.
Is this because I retrofitted the old design and didn't build from scratch?
There are none in service, either captured or otherwise.
There are none being built. but still the old design remains.
They are marked obsolete.

Please can we have a "delete design" option? eh? there is even an open slot for the button in the design screen. could it really be that hard to implement?

[ January 22, 2003, 00:04: Message edited by: couslee ]

[Phoenix-D]

"My second change should prevent the doom of psychic races (the master computer makes the allegiance converter completely ineffective):"

Umm, Q, there's this little weapon called the computer virus. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Reduced the efficency of captures, since you need to repair the computer, but that's fairly minor damage.

Phoenix-D

[Mephisto]

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
K-M you know I am joking.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yea, I know. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Just couldn't resist.

[Mephisto]

Couslee, try the "hide obsolete" button.

[couslee]

I did. I had the game saved even on a .8 turn to try and clear whatever is stopping it. I tried rolling to .0 with hide obsl, not hide obsl, I re-obsoleted all of them, just in case that would reset it, all to not avail. the only thing I can't test, is if them being retrofitted has an impact. well, i guess i could test it next round. make a design, build one, scrap it and a second design built it an retrofit and see, but damn, what a waste. I am trying to play the game, not beta test it. the other thought I had I am gonna check, is perhaps renaming my retrofitted ships. maybe that has something to do with it. thats a lot of renaming tho.

It's a pain, and it sure would be much easier to just have a delete design than having to wait for .0s to come around. I find myself fighting more with the interface and certain "features" than with the AI. maybe they should call the game "UI wars". lol

[Q]

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
"My second change should prevent the doom of psychic races (the master computer makes the allegiance converter completely ineffective):"

Umm, Q, there's this little weapon called the computer virus. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Reduced the efficency of captures, since you need to repair the computer, but that's fairly minor damage.

Phoenix-D<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Phoenix that will be the change in the next patch: even a destroyed master computer protects from allegiance converter!

[capnq]

I re-obsoleted all of them, just in case that would reset it, <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">"Make Obsolete" is actually a toggle; if you hit "Make Obsolete" while an obsolete design is selected, the design is no longer obsolete.

[tesco samoa]

Q that sounds reasonable...

[Mephisto]

Version 1.84:
1. Fixed - Reordered some of the formations to be better for ship movement.
2. Fixed - Tech Areas that were not allowed in the Game Setup would still
show under the expected results list of research.
3. Fixed - Ships in combat will follow their fleet's strategy until they
are no longer in a combat group. Once they are no longer in a
combat group, they will follow their own strategy.
4. Changed - When planets take damage, weapon platforms will be destroyed
first. After all weapon platforms are destroyed, then the remaining
units will take damage randomly.
5. Added - Added two new target types for components: "Ships\Planets\Sat" and
"Ships\Planets\Sat\Drone".
6. Fixed - The Designs Window list would not show a design with the same name
as another, but with different case.
7. Fixed - AI would build multiple system-wide resource modifier facilities in
a system.

[Captain Kwok]

Originally posted by Mephisto:
5. Added - Added two new target types for components: "Ships\Planets\Sat" and "Ships\Planets\Sat\Drone".<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yay! Aaron added my suggestion!

[geoschmo]

4. Changed - When planets take damage, weapon platforms will be destroyed
first. After all weapon platforms are destroyed, then the remaining
units will take damage randomly.

Sah-WEEET! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[couslee]

Cap'nq. I know that. I said I re-obsoleted them (made them not obsolete, made them obsolete again).

Nice try at trying to dx this tho. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Puke]

so the 'ANY' type mounts have not been fixed? they still function as 'NONE' type mounts?

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Puke:
so the 'ANY' type mounts have not been fixed? they still function as 'NONE' type mounts?<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That was fixed in 1.83 Puke. I didn't notice or i would have mentioned it to you.

A weapon type requirement of 'any' will now work for any weapon, but ONLY on weapons. A weapons type requirement of 'none' will work on any component that is NOT a weapon.

Geoschmo

[Rexxx]

Originally posted by Mephisto:
Version 1.84:
4. Changed - When planets take damage, weapon platforms will be destroyed first. After all weapon platforms are destroyed, then the remaining units will take damage randomly. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Very nice feature.
7. Fixed - AI would build multiple system-wide resource modifier facilities in a system.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Great.

[Slick]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
4. Changed - When planets take damage, weapon platforms will be destroyed
first. After all weapon platforms are destroyed, then the remaining
units will take damage randomly.

Sah-WEEET! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Surely this now means that Troops vs. Troops will be much more common. And as such, Troops against planet capture is now a viable option. Or am I reading this wrong?

Slick.

[Puke]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
[QBA weapon type requirement of 'any' will now work for any weapon, but ONLY on weapons. A weapons type requirement of 'none' will work on any component that is NOT a weapon.
[/QB]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">NOOOOooooooo

so, we still dont have a mount that works for both weapons and non-weapons? so, i have to work around it by giving useless weapon abilities to the non-weapon components that I want covered in the mount? so, strategic combat will likely be assed up as a result.

grrr.

[Rollo]

Originally posted by Puke:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by geoschmo:
[QBA weapon type requirement of 'any' will now work for any weapon, but ONLY on weapons. A weapons type requirement of 'none' will work on any component that is NOT a weapon.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">NOOOOooooooo

so, we still dont have a mount that works for both weapons and non-weapons? so, i have to work around it by giving useless weapon abilities to the non-weapon components that I want covered in the mount? so, strategic combat will likely be assed up as a result.

grrr.[/QB]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">hmm, how about making two identical mounts? one using ANY the other NONE..
of course i don't know what you are trying to accomplish.. so i shut up now

[geoschmo]

Ok. Puke I see what you mean. Perhaps this was just a miscommunication. What do you suggest? I guess what we need is a third term besides 'any' and 'none'. One that includes every component. I am sure Aaron would be happy to add it, I am not sure anyone has made it clear that is what we were asking for. This is an improvment over both of them being the same. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Geoschmo

[Phoenix-D]

Not sure why I haven't thought of this before, but maybe for a patch or SE5.

Why not make the available on/targets field comma seperated lists, like the "family list" restriction added recently for mounts?

Phoenix-D

[Captain Kwok]

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
Not sure why I haven't thought of this before, but maybe for a patch or SE5.

Why not make the available on/targets field comma seperated lists, like the "family list" restriction added recently for mounts?

Phoenix-D<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I thought of that too. It would be nice, but it has pretty much been covered in a round-about fashion now.

[couslee]

regarding my obsolete problem
This is strange. I just noticed that an older, upgraded and retro-fitted base design did get deleted. Does the game limit the deletions to one per year perhaps? This is frustrating. I know I can hide the obsolete designs, and not have to look at them all time, but I really hate clutter, even in my games.

(And i wish my left shift key worked better) http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif I just want everything huh? how about a million bucks on a silver platter delivered by Tia Carerra?

[Baron Munchausen]

My understanding is that obsolete designs are deleted at the '1 year' mark. So turn .0 or .1 is the only time that designs are checked, and those which are obsolete and don't have any existing ships are deleted.

[Fyron]

There is no limit to the number of ship designs deleted when it deletes obselete ones.

Maybe SE4 only deletes designs when there are none of the ships that were originally built of that type left in the game? If this is so, then retrofitted ships would still keep the old design around. If not, then SE4 is totally insane.

[couslee]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Maybe SE4 only deletes designs when there are none of the ships that were originally built of that type left in the game? If this is so, then retrofitted ships would still keep the old design around. If not, then SE4 is totally insane.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That is what I am thinking the problem is. One of my designs for DUC use, has "Hunter 2" through "Hunter 5". All my current Hunter class ships are #5. IIRC, the original "Hunter" (1) had only one built, and lost in battle, and the design was changed to include something-or-another new component, so none of those were ever retrofitted, and that design got deleted as it should have.

If they fix bug, then that is great. But I still would like to see a "delete design" option instead of having to wait for the game to do it on turn whathellever. It would be more user friendly imo.

I think they got it backwards. You can have unlimited designs http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif , and only 200 ships. In programming terms, I wonder which one takes up more memory. hmmm

[ January 26, 2003, 09:09: Message edited by: couslee ]

[Phoenix-D]

"I think they got it backwards. You can have unlimited designs , and only 200 ships. In programming terms, I wonder which one takes up more memory. "

Why is this backwards? Designs, unless built, have no effect on the game.

Designs keep track of the number of each class built, lost, scrapped, and how much damage that class has done. Ships keep track of mothball status, position, damage of components, movement available, supply, and various other things.

Phoenix-D

[Fyron]

And, you can increase the limit to 20,000 ships, not just 200.

[Tenryu]

Originally posted by Puke:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by geoschmo:
[QBA weapon type requirement of 'any' will now work for any weapon, but ONLY on weapons. A weapons type requirement of 'none' will work on any component that is NOT a weapon.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">NOOOOooooooo

so, we still dont have a mount that works for both weapons and non-weapons?

grrr.[/QB]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Why not ask for an "every" or "all" flag, Puke?

I think the current "any" and "none" are fine as they are now fixed but I think the terms are confusing some of us.

correct?

[Suicide Junkie]

That is ANY weapon or NON(e)-Weapon.
Not too hard.

If you want an "Anything" mount, simply make a mount for ANY and NONE.

[mottlee]

Bump (still hopeing)

[Ragnarok]

Originally posted by mottlee:
Bump (still hopeing)<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It's out man! I can't find DL link but it's out! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[Gandalph]

Originally posted by Ragnarok:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by mottlee:
Bump (still hopeing)<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It's out man! I can't find DL link but it's out! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Here is the link. Gold Patch 3 (http://216.167.78.120/downloads/se4patchgold3.exe)

[Ragnarok]

Originally posted by Gandalph:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Ragnarok:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by mottlee:
Bump (still hopeing)<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It's out man! I can't find DL link but it's out! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Here is the link. Gold Patch 3 (http://216.167.78.120/downloads/se4patchgold3.exe)</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Sweet. Thanks!

[mottlee]

Originally posted by Ragnarok:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Gandalph:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Ragnarok:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by mottlee:
Bump (still hopeing)<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It's out man! I can't find DL link but it's out! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Here is the link. Gold Patch 3 (http://216.167.78.120/downloads/se4patchgold3.exe)</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Sweet. Thanks!</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">HOT DA*N!!!!!!!!!!!!!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif