SE5, Tell Aaron what's on your Wish List [Archive] - Page 2?login=1

View Full Version : SE5, Tell Aaron what's on your Wish List

Pages : 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Ed Kolis

March 13th, 2003, 11:18 PM

Aack, not race experience! That's just a way to give some races an unfair advantage at the beginning of the game! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif

Now how about mercenaries and other for-hire units? You pay them a certain fee per turn and in exchange you get a leader to add to your empire who gives bonuses (increased research on the planet you assign him to, etc.), or a fleet of ships with unique or powerful abilities? (You could spend 200,000 points researching Ubermachium Armor... or you could hire Zero the Avenger for 10,000 GC a turn, who brings a fleet of 15 battleships that cannot be broken up or analyzed for tech, but is equipped with Ubermachium, not to mention the dreaded Polaris Cannon... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif )

Also, please disallow one-ship fleets... it is really silly (not to mention a micromanagement headache) to be able to gain "fleet experience" in a fleet of that size! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Lemmy

March 13th, 2003, 11:57 PM

I haven't been following this thread (and i'm not going to read this huge thing now http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ) but Ed Kolis' post made me think about a independant merchant guild.
Something like in Imperium Galactica, or EFS.
Or perhaps connect the guild to a something like a United Planets in GalCiv, where only UP members can trade with the guild.

Baron Munchausen

March 14th, 2003, 12:00 AM

Speaking of unfair advantages I'd say that cultures are the really wide-open hole in the design of SE IV races. You can give some race a 200 percent boost in everything if you want and the game won't even hiccup. I think we need to have some sort of 'accounting' for culture settings in the design of a race. Ideally, I'd say we ought to combine the 'happiness' settings with the culture settings in some sort of coordinated 'psychological profile' for each race. It could be a seperate system from the attributes chosen in the game setup but it ought to be controlled by 'points' or some other real cost/benefit controls.

jimbob

March 14th, 2003, 01:49 AM

Tradable and/or Scocketed Components:

As it stands now you can only trade technologies or whole ships to one another. But what if I can make UberParasite Missile IX but I'm only at Propulsion level I. There's no way that I'll be able to sell off my Uberparasite weapons to other races becuase 1) they can't research Parasite missiles without being Organic and 2) nobody would want to buy my ships if they only have propulsion level 1. And as a result, little (in my experience) trading goes on in the game, and specialization in one are of research or use of special tech trees guarantees that nobody will want to trade tech with you... so much for playing a Ferengi or Pirate like race!

But if there was the ability to trade individual components, that would open up an entirely new role within the (PBW) game - the role of arms dealer!! Maybe it should be a racial trait, being able to buy and sell components. Now wouldn't that be cool?

Ed Kolis

March 14th, 2003, 02:50 AM

FYI, Suicide Junkie is doing pretty well as an armsdealer in "P&N on PBW, take 2", and both Geoschmo and myself are giving the strategy a try in "Strange Races"...

Fyron

March 14th, 2003, 02:59 AM

Originally posted by Me Loonn:
Hmm... ?
You ever played independence war 2 WITH few dozen mods ? You'll be supprised how much less messy it is with all different mods in self contained zips instead like in the current se4g.My se4 folder is not very messy, and I have most mods installed. It could be less messy by having them all in a Mods folder, which can be done now already. But, having the mod files all archived cause unnecessary loading time for using the mods. Saving a few MBs of space is meaningless with how cheap hard disk space is nowadays.

Me Loonn

March 14th, 2003, 05:10 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
My se4 folder is not very messy, and I have most mods installed. It could be less messy by having them all in a Mods folder, which can be done now already. But, having the mod files all archived cause unnecessary loading time for using the mods. Saving a few MBs of space is meaningless with how cheap hard disk space is nowadays.Ah well, me guess it is 'easier' to combine several mods in SE4g currently, yes ?

Say, me wants to use FQM with Proportions and some racial techtree mod on the side ?

Why make it simple, since you CAN do it manually. You just need to check EVERY text file in EACH of those mods, to see whitch has what in it..

(copypaste, copypaste, repeat, oh joy)

It's not like combining mods that should be easy, right ?

Zipping them mods is only to help to keep them files intact. If 1 or 2 sec longer delay at starting the game pains you, well, nevermind ..

Fyron

March 14th, 2003, 05:29 AM

FQM is the exception, not the rule. Very few mods can actually be combined without a lot of work. The game could not possibly be programmed to do this well at all.

Actually, Proportions makes a number of changes to the quadrant and system files, so you would lose all of those if you use it with FQM. This may not be a problem for you, just pointing it out. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

It takes much longer than a second or two to extract larger archived files so that the game can use them. It also requires more RAM usage to store the temp files when the game is running. Using something like the Babylon 5 Mod, FQM Deluxe or TDM Modpack would make nearly all Users have to wait for a few minutes before they could play each time they load up the game.

Subfolders keep the mods together nicely. How often do you randomly go in and move files around? I don't know anyone that does that.

[ March 14, 2003, 03:30: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Foreman

March 14th, 2003, 06:13 AM

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
[QB] <blockquote>quote:<hr />- Slow down technology advancement, or at least automatically/freely component upgrade of same family. I don't want to see my ship on battle carrying PPB-II when I already developed PPB-V.That would be like a battleship getting automatic upgrades from 14" main guns to 16" main guns while cruising solo on the open sea.
<hr /></blockquote>'Reasonable' does not always mapped to 'Fun', or there shall be a 3D universe map.

And my example shows something like - a battleship with 14" main guns set sail immediately after it construct, full speed toward battlefield. When it arrives, 18" main guns technology is already there.

Slow down technology is better way to solve it. Automatically retrofit is just a secondary option. Both of them are used to solve the annoying problem, and also these suggestions reduce the micromanagement level.

[ March 14, 2003, 04:18: Message edited by: Foreman ]

jimbob

March 14th, 2003, 07:46 PM

mmm.. but if you want to slow down research, just choose it in the game set up screen (Research = Expensive). It's already an option, I would hope that SEV would leave us as many options as possible.

Suicide Junkie

March 15th, 2003, 12:26 AM

And my example shows something like - a battleship with 14" main guns set sail immediately after it construct, full speed toward battlefield. When it arrives, 18" main guns technology is already there.Well, with all of the scientists in your empire working on the problem, and a two or three month travel time, that is not entirely unreasonable.

Rushing down tech areas to get the final uberweapon of that Category is one of the things I don't like and is on my list of things to mod out.

Higher research costs is only part of the equation. Having much longer tech trees, with diminishing returns is another. Adding Grid techs instead of linear techs will also help.
(EG: Multi tech areas: DUC damage, DUC accuracy, DUC durability, DUC mass production)

Then it would be more like "during the month you were at sea travelling to the front lines, the guns got obsoleted: we came up with a more durable design for the turret gears. It'll reduce the maintenance costs by 2%".

Rigelian

March 15th, 2003, 01:01 AM

Well, with all of the scientists in your empire working on the problem, and a two or three month travel time, that is not entirely unreasonable.
Hmm - diminishing returns apply to research too you know http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif .. so putting all the scientists on it may not gain you much. But in 'game' terms I believe that even a six-month travel time should not result in you arriving on the battlefield with effectively useless weaponry.

I think that the ratios of technological advancement to ship construction times to 'time to battle' are very difficult ones to get right, and historical precedents are not usually directly translated into a good game balance. I have yet to see a (sci-fi at least) game that rewards 'dispersion' of fleets over a territory over making 'one big nasty stack'. Yet that would result in lots more 'cruiser actions' and a better game overall.

I am currently running my first game in a long time, and using High tech cost. So far it looks promising in holding back the arms race. My overall approach is that a ship design that I built a year ago might get beaten by half the number of my latest model - but should not be useless against it.

Rushing down tech areas to get the final uberweapon of that Category is one of the things I don't like and is on my list of things to mod out.
I think High tech cost does the trick nicely on that one already. It costs MILLIONS to get to the end of Energy Stream for example. Same with Shields 10.

Higher research costs is only part of the equation. Having much longer tech trees, with diminishing returns is another. Adding Grid techs instead of linear techs will also help.
(EG: Multi tech areas: DUC damage, DUC accuracy, DUC durability, DUC mass production)
I don't think I would go down to that level of granularity. What I would do is make the tech tree a directed graph instead of a tree; like the Civilisation series games for example. To give a couple of examples:
Cloaking might need Astrophysics 2 as well as Physics 3.
Troops above level 1 might need Psychology (or Computers, alternate tracks).
ECM level needs matching level of Physics, as well as the prerequisite Mil. Sci.

Suicide Junkie

March 15th, 2003, 01:07 AM

I have yet to see a (sci-fi at least) game that rewards 'dispersion' of fleets over a territory over making 'one big nasty stack'. Yet that would result in lots more 'cruiser actions' and a better game overall.Oh, certainly.

The problem is mainly that concentration of firepower is so important.
Perhaps if there were more specialty and "splash damage" weapons, that would be effective against large concentrations of ships, but next to useless against small/scattered forces...

Sort of like infantry and artillery.
or vehicles and tactical nukes.

Hard to pick off a single guy, but if there's a thousand coming at you, you're bound to hit something or two.

[ March 15, 2003, 00:18: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ]

Rigelian

March 15th, 2003, 12:19 PM

The problem is mainly that concentration of firepower is so important.
Perhaps if there were more specialty and "splash damage" weapons, that would be effective against large concentrations of ships, but next to useless against small/scattered forces... I think you've interpreted my comment as talking about the tactical when I meant the strategic.. but what the heck, both are interesting http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

At the tactical level, SE4 does indeed impose what is in effect a 'stacking limit' by having one ship per square. This does result in some nonsense with large fleets, but not a bad idea overall. I remember imposing such limits in old hex-based tabletop games before now, with positive results. And as you say, bringing in 'splash damage' can discourage stacking without an arbitrary rule. I seem to remember SFB ship explosions having that effect.

At the strategic level, what I meant was the dispersal of the fleet over the empire, and the opportunity for many small scale actions (as opposed to mega-stack, win-or-die, apocalyptic clashes). I think one major factor discouraging this is the warp point system, which channels all travel through classic 'choke points' and practically guarantees only major fleet actions.

In over 20 years of gaming I have yet to find a campaign system that generates interesting cruiser actions, in any game - so the lack of it in SE4 is not a major criticism. It remains one of the reasons that I prefer the early game though, and why I like High tech cost to prolong that...

dumbluck

March 15th, 2003, 01:03 PM

I still like my percentage cloak ability idea that's buried somewheres deep in this thread.

I think it was this thread, anyway...

dumbluck

March 15th, 2003, 01:24 PM

Heh. It was this thread.

Originally posted by dumbluck:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by dumbluck:
Cloaking that is percentage based instead of level based. That way, you never really know if your ship slipped past his sensor grid until his fleet pounces on it...To elaborate:
Cloaking becomes a new ability tag "% chance to remain undetected", one for each type of cloaking (i.e. Active, Passive, Psychic, etc). It is, of coarse, a value. Cloaking components/sectors/systems have a positive value, cloak defeating sensors have a negative value. These values should NOT be cumulative (or better yet, make that moddable in settings.txt with a simple true/false line).

The basic sensor ability (before any research) is just the cloaking tag attatched to the hull size. It should probably be about -50% (or 50% chance to detect normal ships). Colonies get an inate sensor rating of about -25%. That should be moddable in settings.txt as well. The values, of coarse, aren't set in stone....

edit: upon review, the below method seems much more logical than the above system.

If you wanted to get really elaborate, you could have seperate tags for "% chance to remain undetected" and "% chance to detect". Then you could make it so that (for example) the cloaking values don't stack, but the sensor values DO stack. (which IMO would be unbalancing, unless the sensors didn't have a high value...) I think it would also be kinda neat if there were two kinds of sensor tags, System wide, and sector wide. Then you could make all sorts of interesting cominations! (System wide sensors having a lower max ability than Sector specific sensors comes to mind...)

Now comes my favorite part. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif A check is made each turn to see if your ship is detected using the following formula:

A - B = C
where:
A = Highest available cloaking %
B = Highest available sensor %
C = % chance of detection.

As an example, we'll use my numbers above. An uncloaked ship enters a system in which you have a single colony. 0%(cloak)-25%(colony sensor)=25% chance that you will detect the ship THIS TURN. The game does a quick random number generation, and determines whether or not the ship is detected. Next turn, assuming that the ship is still in system, the game goes thru the whole process again.

That way, just because you slipped past the sensors Last turn, they might detect you this turn. The opposite is true, as well; just because you detected that star destroyer as it entered your system this turn, that doesn't mean that you will be able to detect it next turn!!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif Even better would be to make the turns between sensor checks moddable, too. Yet another line added to settings.txt.... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

You could also mod a high value sector only sensor tag onto Warppoints, if you wanted. That way, you see the cloaked ship enter the system (since it activated the WP, which would probably be noticed). But as soon as it moves away from the warppoint ... I hope you had sensors researched...

I provided a few examples of how versitile such a cloaking model would be. Hopefully, Aaron is convinced now. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif (yes, I know he probably will never see this thread...)<hr /></blockquote>

Rigelian

March 16th, 2003, 01:47 AM

Phoenix-D

March 16th, 2003, 02:53 AM

"I think one major factor discouraging this is the warp point system, which channels all travel through classic 'choke points' and practically guarantees only major fleet actions."

The problem here is in a lot of military situations, splitting up your fleet just invites defeat in detail. Even if SE4 didn't have warp points this would be true.

Phoenix-D

TheBlip

March 16th, 2003, 09:19 AM

Well I have a few suggestions (may work for SEIV too).

1) In tactical combat have the board "wrap around" so you don't get stuck at the corners. Have the E-W squares warp and the N-S squares map, so that if you are at the east edge of the map and you move east, you end up at the west edge of the map. Faster ships should be able to escape and not get caught in a corner of a map. Hopefully you can at least make it a configurable item at startup.

2) In tactical combat have a button to resolve the reset of the combat using strategic. Yes I know you can hit auto and end-turn over and over. Often I want to scan a planet first to see what it has.

3) In tactical combat, somehow make the fighters group. Right now, when they are launched they fly off to attack. I would prefer all fighters to launch and group up, then attack.

TheBlip

Fyron

March 16th, 2003, 09:24 AM

2) There is a Resolve button in the Orders menu. It will automatically hit auto and end turn for you. It would be nice if there was a second option to exit tactical though.

3) Place them in a fleet. Select one fighter stack, hit alt + 0-9 (you can make up to 10 "fleets" in this way). That fighter is the leader of the fleet. Then, click on each other fighter stack you want and hit alt + 0-9 (the same number) to add them to the fleet.

[ March 16, 2003, 07:26: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

BadAxe

March 17th, 2003, 05:23 PM

Definitely a scenario creator/editor would be nice.

And the option to upgrade a single facility to the next level only, not all facilities to the max level. (Think Proportions, I really can't develop one minor city to a city? I have to upgrade all five minor cities to major cities, invest all those resources for no return?)

jimbob

March 18th, 2003, 03:12 AM

Originally posted by dumbluck:
Cloaking that is percentage based instead of level based. That way, you never really know if your ship slipped past his sensor grid until his fleet pounces on it... 
Originally posted by Rigellian:
Done this sort of thing before in modifications to games. I have found the critical thing is this - you must generate 'false contacts' somehow. Another factor to include is a range dependency, so you can 'close in and confirm' that hazy little blip on the screen.. 8-)Good thinking, I think I like the range idea a lot. Of course you could make the effectiveness per range modable as well http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif !! So maybe Psychic Sensors would have a 50% chance of detecting at range 1, but only 25% at rng 2, and 12.5 at rng 3; while Gravimetric Sensors could have 30, 25, 20, 15, 10% at ranges 1,2,3,4, and 5 respectively.

The effectiveness and/or cost of cloaking can be tied to ship size as well, so it's easy to sneak that escort past his fleet but those 30 baseships are a different matter. Similarly for fleets of ships, they should get progressively harder to hide.Hmm, yes, you can mod the % chance to hit in combat, I suppose it wouldn't be that much harder to introduce a % chance detect line to the code.

Good Ideas! I hope Aaron reads this thread http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Malfunction

March 18th, 2003, 03:56 AM

Definitely ships larger than 1 square. I want baseships that look like the Deathstar compared to fighters.

Mudshark

March 18th, 2003, 06:38 AM

As much as Moo 3 is lacking, I do like the diplomatic model. Imagine if you entered a partnership and this caused you to enter into a parliment situation. If you broke these trieties, you could be cast out. perhaps to join another? If implemented correctly this could add a great demension! One group has a hatred of mines, another outlaws fighters, perhaps onother group will not allow BB and up.

TheBlip

March 18th, 2003, 07:42 PM

Thanks Imperator Fyron for the reply. I am finding that many of my questions are there as I haven't fully learned the user interface (I just got the gold Version Last Thursday). Thanks for pointing out the button in the options menu, I never even saw it. On the fighter question I was wishing for a way that the AI would group them, as right now the AI dribbles them out in Groups and it makes them a lot easier to defeat, as opposed to attacking in a large wave.

More suggested improvements:
For the Combat Simulator
1) Allow the option of any tech to be used, rather than the ones you have researched.
2) Allow the use of any design you have created, rather than the ones that are in place. I am referring to ground placement options (weapon platforms).

I would like to be able to define a planet and it's defense for use in the simulator. I have not been able to figure out a way to do this without building a planets defenses up in the game, then choose that planet to defend in the simulator.

If you can do either of these any hints or suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks.

Fyron

March 18th, 2003, 08:56 PM

2) Allow the use of any design you have created, rather than the ones that are in place. I am referring to ground placement options (weapon platforms). Add a planet under your control, and then click the Cargo button. You can indeed add cargo to planets (such as Weapons Platforms).

TheBlip

March 19th, 2003, 06:57 AM

Thank you again Imperator Fyron. In appreciation of answering my question you get... another question.
I have started a new game using the TDM mod. Everything was working just fine. Today when I loaded the game I got a different set of graphics for the ship and the empire symbol/color. Next time I loaded the game I got another different set of graphics and colors. Any idea on what I am doing incorrectly? I have loaded the game via the ingame load-game option, as well as using the game launcher (SE4Launcher.exe).
Thanks again.
TheBlip

Fyron

March 19th, 2003, 07:15 AM

This happens when the game is set up with a shipset being used by an empire that is not in the mod. You most likely selected a shipset that is not in TDM to use. To fix the problem:

1) Navigate to TDM-Modpack\Pictures\Races
2) Create an empty folder that is named the same as the shipset you are using.

This will cause that shipset to be available for use in the TDM mod. Since there are no files in the folder, SE4 will look for the same folder in the default Pictures\Races folder, and will load all the relevant files.

This thread is for SE5 suggestions though, so please create a new thread to ask more questions in the future. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

TheBlip

March 19th, 2003, 10:43 PM

Thank you Atraikius that was exactly the problem. I had selected the TDM mod in the launcher and the save game, but I didn't select the TDM mod, load the mod, then load the saved game. Although I must admit I was having fun looking at all the other ship designs.

And again thank you Imperator Fyron, I will endevour to keep my Posts in the correct threads.

Since this is what we want for SE V...
1) It would be really nice to have a scripting language for the AI's so you could write your own "intellegence" for the AI. This way you could determine what the AI would want to do and the order to do it. Yes this is a very complex undertaking (Stars! Supernova was attempting it with their RDL (?) language). I guess you would need two sets, one for the strategic AI, one for the tactical AI. I have done AI programming in the past so I have an interest in this arena. I always have thought it would be fun to program several of the AI races and see how they do against each other. I tend to enjoy this more than just playing the game. However I expect I am about a 0.01% market share so I am not holding my breath http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Master Belisarius

March 19th, 2003, 10:59 PM

Originally posted by TheBlip:
Since this is what we want for SE V...
1) It would be really nice to have a scripting language for the AI's so you could write your own "intellegence" for the AI. This way you could determine what the AI would want to do and the order to do it. Yes this is a very complex undertaking (Stars! Supernova was attempting it with their RDL (?) language). I guess you would need two sets, one for the strategic AI, one for the tactical AI. I have done AI programming in the past so I have an interest in this arena. I always have thought it would be fun to program several of the AI races and see how they do against each other. I tend to enjoy this more than just playing the game. However I expect I am about a 0.01% market share so I am not holding my breath http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif hehehe, you're not alone in the boat!

Your request is my request for SE5 too...
Stars!Supernova was following this idea: they created an script language, that the people could use to improve the AIs behavior.
Currently, I enjoy more modding SE4 AIs than palying the game itself!

But note, that although people like you and me, could be only the 0.01% of the market, already was was good for MM: the modders that improved the AI scripts helped to make the game more challenging, and then, think these people helped in some way to improve the SE4 sales!

Atraikius

March 20th, 2003, 02:45 AM

When you are loading the game, are you selecting the TDM-Modpack before loading? You may be loading your game using standard SEIV, after starting it with the TDM-Modpack. Try selecting TDM-Modpack with the mod-launcher (making sure that the opening screen says 'using TDM-Modpack'), and wait to load the game until in SEIV itself.

[ March 19, 2003, 12:46: Message edited by: Atraikius ]

pmazolo

March 25th, 2003, 11:58 PM

I think the most important thing would be to implement a possibility to add story-lines to the game. That is events that depend on other events and variables etc. I would really love to write some classic SF storys in SE V! (think System Shock II on an epic scale!) The Scenario/Events of SEIV are not at all enough for this.

The next thing would be to allow more control over the ministers. To give them universal/system/planet orders and policies/priorities to follow. And the ability to override them for temporarily. To say for example "Produce warships at all cost." to key planets when war breaks out, and cancel that order and return to whatever priorities they had later. Do not remove the great micromanagement (MOO3 sucks), but allow me to use ministers and TRUST THEM in the later game. A super good AI could do it, but it would be more fun to just move up the micromanagement one level, to manage the ministers instead! Instead of deciding every detail or nothing, I would like to still manage, but on a higher scale, and at a point in the game when I decide it. Perhaps different levels of ministers could be used to go even higher and manage huge empires for super-epic games!

The races should also be given more personality, at least by individual speech.

Then to sell more you probably need better graphics (especially the race faces that are quite ugly), animations of ship display, races, 3D battles, etc, but I guess you know this. To me its not that important.

Fyron

March 26th, 2003, 12:11 AM

especially the race faces that are quite ugly Who said everyone has to be beautiful by our standards? Maybe they are all super-attractive to their species. They aren't humans, so you can't apply human standards of beauty to them. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Ed Kolis

March 28th, 2003, 11:44 PM

Say, now that PBW is an established institution, I wonder if MM could work with them to integrate the service into SE5 - so you do all your turn uploading/downloading, etc. from inside the game... or would that even be useful?

Baron Munchausen

March 29th, 2003, 01:17 AM

Originally posted by Ed Kolis:
Say, now that PBW is an established institution, I wonder if MM could work with them to integrate the service into SE5 - so you do all your turn uploading/downloading, etc. from inside the game... or would that even be useful?Maybe MM could develop a 'protocol' and publish the specs so whoever wanted to could run a server. This would be especially cool if SE 5 offered a way to maintain a 'persistent universe' instead of each game being a one-off event. It'd be much cooler to have lots of smaller 'Online game worlds' than one huge one maintained by some sort of corporation as we have with most MMOPG setups these days.

Ed Kolis

March 29th, 2003, 06:10 AM

Hmm, didn't there used to be some sort of epic conflict thing set up where whenever a sector in the metagame came under conflict, it was resolved by playing SE4? Never got involved in that, it seemed like there were too many rules and it was too hardcore-RP-style... besides, if you think a PBW game takes a long time - not to mention SE4 by Committee - it boggles the mind how long this sort of thing would take http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif are they still around, anyway? it's been what, 3 years since SE4 was released? or did everybody get bored and give up? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

another idea for SE5: an option for weighted planet generation! It's not fair if everyone happens to pick oxygen rock except for the one player who picks hydrogen gas... he gets all his planets "for free" while the others are scrambling to grab as many oxygen rock worlds as they can before they're all taken! It would be nice if SE5 could weight the planet distribution at game setup to match the empires' preferred planets (provided an option was checked - you might want unbalanced setups for some other reason, like in the Star Trek mod where most races like rock planets but the Breen and 8472 don't, so presumably they have some disadvantage to balance their easy acquisition of worlds...)

Fyron

March 29th, 2003, 09:26 PM

I think you are talking about the SE Universe Ladder, which was around before SE4 came out (started back in SE3 days). In it, you can attack a lot more than 1 system at a time. It is going to reopen soon.

[ March 29, 2003, 19:27: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Ed Kolis

March 30th, 2003, 03:58 AM

Another idea... a new targeting priority, Easiest/Hardest To Hit. So you make all your Talisman ships go after the hard-to-hit guys and everyone else goes after the remainder. Assuming the Talisman isn't removed or heavily modified for play balance reasons http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Fyron

March 30th, 2003, 07:08 AM

Removal of the Talisman would be best. Just because you are deeply spiritual does not mean that you are automatically better at firing weapons.

narf poit chez BOOM

March 30th, 2003, 09:44 AM

leaders. they'd also need forces to lead, so for se v you could have different classes of spys, ie you could have 1000 sources of information on a planet, but all of them are at the general public level, your probably not going to get classified information. this could also be done with a percentage or rating system. and your leader would give bonuses ie a espeinage leader would boost your chances of getting useful information.

Ed Kolis

March 31st, 2003, 11:51 PM

Nah, best not to remove anything unless it becomes impractical from a programming standpoint. Sure, the current use of the "weapons always hit" ability might be cheesy, but there might be a legitimate use for it in some mod somewhere... super targeting sensors that are REALLY huge and expensive but guarantee a hit, maybe? interesting strategic decision, do I take up half my ship's hull with |_|83r 1337 Sensors-O-Doom (note: come up with better name http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif ) that guarantee my weapons always hit, but in the process lose most of my raw firepower in the process?

Fyron

April 1st, 2003, 02:54 AM

The ability itself can be left in, though it can be simulated with +400 to hit or so (which gives you 99% hit rate no matter what else happens).

narf poit chez BOOM

April 1st, 2003, 09:48 AM

well, i think a programmer should try not to limit the options of mod makers.

Me Loonn

April 1st, 2003, 01:56 PM

Me would like the ability to tow bases in system. Mayby needing a fleet of 10 times the mass of the base to move it 1 sector per gameturn, 20 to move 2 sectors and so on.
This way you need quite a sizeable fleet to move one base, (25 dreagnaughts/starbase), but if you already have managed to create a fleet of that size, towing a base isn't a problem for you.

Me thinks an advaced species that can create planets, stars and blackholes (and destroy them) might be able to do a simple towing of a base http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

What you think ?

-edit-
Oh, and damaged ships, too !

[ April 01, 2003, 12:02: Message edited by: Me Loonn ]

thorfrog

April 1st, 2003, 04:04 PM

Well here is my list:

-Capital (Palaces)
-Increase the size of the starship graphics. Allow dreadnaughts, starbases, baseships, etc to take up more than one square in combat. NOw their size matters.
-More unique weapon types
-Add a random availible technology option so that way it forces you to trade for tech you need
-Update current weapon strengths/weaknesses
-Add more unique abilities to weapons. Balance them out. Make them all usefull.
-Race specific technology
-Revamp ground combat to be more MOO3 like
-Allow race hatred toward a certain empires
-Make better use of population and mining
-Allow wandering space monsters
-Allow pirate activity
-More victory conditions (refence Galactic Civilization)
-Improve on diplomacy and spying
-Allow retreat option in space combat. Make this possible with technology aka warp drive, jump drive, cloak, jump gates, etc
-allow graphics to display combat damage on star ships

[ April 01, 2003, 14:06: Message edited by: atomannj ]

thorfrog

April 1st, 2003, 04:12 PM

Graphic feature idea:

As a planet creates more money & industry have an animation around the planet/system of commercial traffic. I think this would look cool and would make it easier to view which planets/system are doing well.

[ April 01, 2003, 18:12: Message edited by: atomannj ]

Suicide Junkie

April 1st, 2003, 05:58 PM

-Race specific technologyWhat exactly do you mean? SE4 already has racial technologies...

-Increase the size of the starship graphics. Allow dreadnaughts, starbases, baseships, etc to take up more than one square in combat. Now their size matters.Realistically, you should be able to stack a whole lot of ships in one combat square as in SE3.
Turning, movement and targetting would all become problems for multi-square ships.

Are you looking for a coordinate-based system instead of tiles?

MegaTrain

April 1st, 2003, 05:59 PM

These are probably here somewhere in the 20 pages of Posts, but:

1) MOD-able atmospheres and planet types.

If I want to allow Rock, Gas, Spongey, and Cheese, why not? I would have to hand-code the tech tree and colonization components to match, but that shouldn't be hard.

Same with atmosphere types. Why isn't there just a simple check to see if the value in the Planets file matches the chosen value of the race?

Only thing this would mean is that the empire-creation screen would have to read the contents of a TXT file to determine the valid starting choices for atmospheres and planet types.

Only other "odd" thing is unique interactions: Gas planets can't have "None" atmosphere.

2) Treaties. Somebody else mentioned more sophisticated treaty choices (Research and resupply only, for example), but another problem is with allowing treaty partners to tromp all over your systems.

Currently, (other than Intel), there is no way to "handle" a ship that you suspect is spying out your systems or even laying mines on top of your homeworlds. Unless you want to break the entire treaty, of course, and lose the 20% trade you've developed over several years.

I'd like the ability to fire on and destroy a ship, maybe with a prompt "Are you sure? We have a treaty with XXX?". That way, it is up to them to break the treaty based on our actions, or simply tell us "sorry, it won't happen again" while maintaining the trade %.

Oooo. Just thought of more: how about setting a max trade % for an empire to "punish" them? I've always wanted a way to change the "mood" toward human opponents, too. And a notes page for each empire, just like for systems.

Related question: Anybody know why the "History" button shows nothing in Simultaneous PBW? Does it only record history for single-player AI games? Same question concerning the "Comparisons" button. Does that only work when "see all scores" is on?

Noble713

April 1st, 2003, 06:58 PM

1. A better map/scenario editor, with the ability to place empires, ships, units, etc. This is the most important for me.
2. Retreat re-incorporated into tactical combat.
3. Larger maps. As it stands, maps don't get bigger, just more crowded (or so it seems). I want the size of the map to actually grow as well, and an increase in the maximum # of systems. I like the way MOO3 handles the galaxy map and the type of galaxies with shapes and whatnot. One of the few positive things I can say about that game...
4. More flexible AI design. I really like the idea of a scripting language that has been thrown around. I know it's not a 4X game, but Morrowind using a scripting language for its editor and the flexibility it has given to modders has been incredible.
5. Better sound effects (low priority, but it'd still be nice).

thorfrog

April 1st, 2003, 08:27 PM

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />-Race specific technologyWhat exactly do you mean? SE4 already has racial technologies...

I guess I was looking for more variety
in race specific tech. For example only Romulans can develope the cloaking device. I think what is currently availible is very limited.

-Increase the size of the starship graphics. Allow dreadnaughts, starbases, baseships, etc to take up more than one square in combat. Now their size matters.Realistically, you should be able to stack a whole lot of ships in one combat square as in SE3.
Turning, movement and targetting would all become problems for multi-square ships.

Are you looking for a coordinate-based system instead of tiles?<hr /></blockquote>As for ship size it would be cool to have a coordinate system. But what I would really like are ship graphics that show more scale. I'd like a baseship to monsterous compaired to a frigate.

[ April 01, 2003, 18:28: Message edited by: atomannj ]

Suicide Junkie

April 1st, 2003, 08:43 PM

I guess I was looking for more variety
in race specific tech. For example only Romulans can develope the cloaking device. I think what is currently availible is very limited.Ah. That, of course is completely moddable. Check out the Trek mod and the B5 mod for good examples of having piles of Racial techs to choose from.
P&N adds a 6th major (1500 point) tech, and a handful of "minor" racial techs (150-700 points).

As for ship size it would be cool to have a coordinate system. But what I would really like are ship graphics that show more scale. I'd like a baseship to monsterous compaired to a frigate.Shipset artists have tried that, but the small ships tend to become too small to see.
SE5 will have ships rendered on the fly from models, so a zoom feature is entirely possible.
Wider size differences between hulls sounds likely for SE5.

Related question: Anybody know why the "History" button shows nothing in Simultaneous PBW? Does it only record history for single-player AI games? Same question concerning the "Comparisons" button. Does that only work when "see all scores" is on?I believe that is because PBW does not send the statistics file from the savegame.
If you run the game locally, the minimum you will see is the plot of your own empire's growth all alone on the chart.

[ April 01, 2003, 18:46: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ]

tesco samoa

April 2nd, 2003, 05:49 AM

Don't know if anyone said this one before...

Sortable reports.... And a real fog of war....

Where The enemy does not get to see any names of my stuff

mac5732

April 2nd, 2003, 07:30 AM

in SP play, the ai to build BS, more mines and sats on wormholes,

msg telling which units have been refitted

Ed Kolis

April 3rd, 2003, 02:45 AM

Probably mentioned this before, but how about Auto-rename for ships that have been refitted if they have not already been renamed by the player (you know, like to something unique because that ship is a "hero" or soemthing http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif ) - it's kind of a pain to have 32 Marauder-class Frigates but 17 of them are named things like "Supply Ship 0001" and "StrLngAtkFG 0023" because they're really refitted designs! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Fyron

April 3rd, 2003, 03:21 AM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
Where The enemy does not get to see any names of my stuffYou have to be able to distinguish between enemy ship types. An enemy BC using APBs would not look (and scan) exactly the same as any enemy BC using CSMs (or any other weapon). Since all of a race's BCs look alike, you need to see the design name to be able to get any basic information.

Suicide Junkie

April 3rd, 2003, 04:06 AM

More like "Enemy Design 0158"
instead of "Sunbuster Deluxe MK II"

Then, a good feature would be to have the option to change those generic names, and essentially give each enemy design nicknames independent of what the other guys call them.

[ April 03, 2003, 02:08: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ]

Krsqk

April 3rd, 2003, 05:05 AM

Somewhat like the Soviet names for their planes/missiles/tanks/ships/etc, and the NATO-standard names, which weren't even close? I think that's a great idea.

I'll put my vote in for some more micromanagement in the intel system, as well. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

narf poit chez BOOM

April 3rd, 2003, 08:12 AM

i'd find the duplicate names way to confusing.

Me Loonn

April 3rd, 2003, 10:56 AM

Yet another idea just struct me; new facility that adds construction rate same as population, happiness and racial traits, like +10% per level 1 'contruction facility' and +30% per level 3.

The idea other people have mentioned, to make construction queues sameway as intelligence and research queues are now, also sound great to me.

You could (or must) devote a huge planet full of people, level 3 space yard and 24 of level 3 'contruction facilities' to build your ships (in the later stages of game). This planet abviously would need far more defending that any other type of colonies, so if enemy goes and glasses this one over, it would be same as losing a homeworld in Proportions mod.

Also, building spaceyard on every colony wouldn't as usefull for ship building as it is now. It would add more specialization for planets; you could still build space yard on every colony but rates would be dramatically slower that on a yard planet whitch could build not only max 1 ship per round, but upto 12 ships per round.

This makes more sense (for me anyway) since its not like only one oiltanker, luxury cruiser etc is build per year in real life http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

-edit: typos-

[ April 03, 2003, 09:06: Message edited by: Me Loonn ]

Fyron

April 3rd, 2003, 11:06 AM

You can mod se4 to be able to build multiple SYs on a planet. Make a facility of the same family as the SY, but with no SY ability. Then, build that facility, and upgrade it to a SY. Presto, you get a second (or third, etc.) SY on the planet! Give the SYs low ability levels, so you need lots to be able to build in a reasonable time.

Me Loonn

April 3rd, 2003, 11:09 AM

Hmm.. well, you could do it that way, me guess..
All we now need is build queues to match intelligence and research queues http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

narf poit chez BOOM

April 3rd, 2003, 01:21 PM

we'll mod se5 before mm bulds it!

dogscoff

April 3rd, 2003, 01:51 PM

That was the case with SE4 - there were races and mods available before the game was released.

I'd love to know what ideas Aaron has liked and disliked from this thread. I guess we'll have to wait until se5 comes out before we know though http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Suicide Junkie

April 4th, 2003, 03:11 PM

Custom happiness/friendliness level names for each race! (And settable in multiplayer)

EG: If a merchant race is happy with you, their happiness would translate to a "Credit rating: A+"
Meanwhile, the SpaceVikings might consider you "Drinking Buddies"

Ed Kolis

April 4th, 2003, 07:27 PM

Don't forget "Ctrl-Shift click for 1000/5000"!

Me Loonn

April 4th, 2003, 10:12 PM

Originally posted by Ed Kolis:
Don't forget "Ctrl-Shift click for 1000/5000"!rofl

Ed Kolis

April 5th, 2003, 01:09 AM

what's so funny about that? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif you could do it in Stars!...

narf poit chez BOOM

April 5th, 2003, 01:53 AM

a multiplier and left and right arrows. click left, the multiplier is multiplied by 0.1. right and it's 10. this would allwo you to deal with many level of cargo, making modding easier.

Me Loonn

April 5th, 2003, 02:11 AM

*Adding on queues*
- Instead of click "add one" to add 1, "add five" to add 5 and "add ten" to add 10, i would like it to be :

click on:
"add one" to add 1
"add five" to add 5

SHIFT-click on :
"add one" to add 10
"add five" to add 50

CTRL-click on:
"add one" to add 100
"add five" to add 500.

This would be far better than current way, since so many times you need to move 100's of cargo items,population, mines etc.

A small change for game, but huge change for gameplay (well ok, not THAT huge, but still).

Me Loonn

April 5th, 2003, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by Ed Kolis:
what's so funny about that? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif you could do it in Stars!...Its just that me doesnt recall ever needing to move 1000's of cargo items in SE4g.

100's of cargo items, however, is commonly needed to move around and 10 per click really bothers me http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Thermodyne

April 5th, 2003, 05:41 PM

I want more ability to control fleets in simo games. There should be more selection in the menu.

Baron Munchausen

April 5th, 2003, 06:36 PM

Originally posted by Me Loonn:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Ed Kolis:
what's so funny about that? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif you could do it in Stars!...Its just that me doesnt recall ever needing to move 1000's of cargo items in SE4g.

100's of cargo items, however, is commonly needed to move around and 10 per click really bothers me http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif <hr /></blockquote>I had to pester for over a year to get even that. It used to be only 1 and 5 on the menu. Good luck getting him to add a 20 button.

Fyron

April 5th, 2003, 08:37 PM

Originally posted by Me Loonn:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Ed Kolis:
what's so funny about that? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif you could do it in Stars!...Its just that me doesnt recall ever needing to move 1000's of cargo items in SE4g.<hr /></blockquote>Go play Proportions Mod. Make a few 1000 infantry, and you'll see the need. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Me Loonn

April 6th, 2003, 12:23 PM

Well that cargo window still has alot room for all of them, like this:

move 1
move 5
move 10
move 50
move 100
move 500
move 1000
move 5000
move all

There, now THAT should do it http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

[ April 06, 2003, 12:21: Message edited by: Me Loonn ]

Ed Kolis

April 6th, 2003, 11:26 PM

The ability to drop radiation bombs on uninhabited planets to make SURE they stay uninhabited! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Baron Munchausen

April 7th, 2003, 12:23 AM

Originally posted by Ed Kolis:
The ability to drop radiation bombs on uninhabited planets to make SURE they stay uninhabited! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif You could generalize this in many ways. Why can't we get the stuff in 'ruins' off of a planet even if we can't colonize it? Why can't we plant a BASE on a planet without colonizing it? (Outpost?) A few new technologies for 'archaeology' and 'outPosts' could make for some interesting new situations in the game.

primitive

April 7th, 2003, 01:09 AM

Originally posted by David E. Gervais:
How about just adding/using a slider to select the number?

just my 2-cents (currently on sale at 50% off!)

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif David:
Pleeease, don't make too many sliders.

My Carpal Tunnel Syndrome is bad enough as it is. I have had to give up on games in the past because they are to mouse-intensive. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

I want keyboard shortcuts, transfer 412 million people: T-4-1-2. Less work, and it gives the hand a rest. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

David E. Gervais

April 7th, 2003, 01:21 AM

How about just adding/using a slider to select the number?

just my 2-cents (currently on sale at 50% off!)

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

David E. Gervais

April 7th, 2003, 03:32 AM

slider? I don't even know her!

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

Krsqk

April 7th, 2003, 05:01 AM

Changing the current toggle-select UI. It was very confusing to look at "Empire under player control," think "I want that," click it, and have a green dot appear and the text change to "Empire under computer control." Let the text stay the same, and come up with some check marks or something that indicate whether the option described is in effect or not. There is another one under Empire -> Strategies that works like that, but I can't think of any other toggle boxes that do. It's just inconsistent; and while I'm used to those specific instances now, it was very confusing as a newbie. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Fyron

April 7th, 2003, 06:26 AM

Sliders are innaccurate, imprecise, and just not good overall for most purposes.

jimbob

April 7th, 2003, 04:59 PM

Instead of sliders how about:

Move 1
Move 5
Move 10
Other
Move All

And when you click "Other" a little box pops up and you type in the amount you want transfered! maybe even leave that number up until the player changes it again. So it would look like...

Move 1
Move 5
Move 10
Other 512
Move All

[ April 07, 2003, 16:00: Message edited by: jimbob ]

Claymore Righ

April 8th, 2003, 06:20 PM

This has probably been mentioned already, but:

A Player logs file that you can keep all of your game notes in. This should be saved as a simple test document for offline reading and editing as well.

I know you can make notes per system, but you can't even do simple formating like a carriage return.

Fyron

April 8th, 2003, 08:27 PM

Copy a carriage return in wordpad, and then you can paste it into the system notes. Before 1.84, you could do carriage returns in the system notes because hitting the enter key did not select ok. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Aloofi

April 8th, 2003, 08:37 PM

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
Why can't we get the stuff in 'ruins' off of a planet even if we can't colonize it? Why can't we plant a BASE on a planet without colonizing it? (Outpost?) A few new technologies for 'archaeology' and 'outPosts' could make for some interesting new situations in the game.Hoho this is an awesome idea!
I'll add to my Version of Proportions a cheap colonization module with no population cargo space to build "outPosts" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Humm, I wonder if the AI would use it, or worst, what if the AI starts colonizing planets without population?..... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

Fyron

April 8th, 2003, 09:04 PM

That would be very easy to abuse. Colonies are next to worthless with only a few million pop in Proportions anyways. They only start being useful after a number of transports have increased the pop level. 1 less million starting pop makes little difference if you follow the colony ship with some transports anyways.

Ed Kolis

April 19th, 2003, 11:28 PM

Prearranged resource conVersion and trades - e.g. give an order that "from now on, every N turns I'll convert X organics to minerals", and "every N turns I give you X minerals for Y radioactives".

Krsqk

April 20th, 2003, 01:38 AM

You can have prearranged resource conVersion. Hit the Convert button, place your orders, hit OK, then click Repeat Orders. I'm using it right this minute in a PBW game (Okay, not this minute, but whenever the turn processes...).

Slick

April 20th, 2003, 03:14 AM

Originally posted by Claymore Righ:
This has probably been mentioned already, but:

A Player logs file that you can keep all of your game notes in. This should be saved as a simple test document for offline reading and editing as well.

I know you can make notes per system, but you can't even do simple formating like a carriage return.Older guys like me remember that a carriage return is a CTRL-M. This works in the system notes as a carriage return. Now where is my Geritol.

Slick.

narf poit chez BOOM

April 22nd, 2003, 06:58 AM

no need for slider. as i said:

a multiplier and left and right arrows. click left, the multiplier is multiplied by 0.1. right and it's 10. this would allwo you to deal with many level of cargo, making modding easier.
4 clicks and you could transfer 1000.
5 clicks and you could transfer 2000.
5 clicks and you could transfer 10000.

Ed Kolis

May 22nd, 2003, 03:27 AM

Mines that either require sensors to hit cloaked ships, or only have a chance of being hit depending on how saturated the sector is with mines! (Or both!)

And that's assuming there are still sectors and the game doesn't get converted to a full Cartesian or polar coordinate system http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

cybersol

May 22nd, 2003, 09:43 AM

Don't know if any of this has been said. I am not through all 22 pages of Posts yet.

My biggest single wish for SEV would be to make the AI more moddable. The best solution IMO would be to have an AI scripting language. If-then, while, case/switch, etc. This would allow people to improve any and all aspects of the AI.

I also like the ability to use equations in the mod files as others have mentioned. Armor weights 1/20 hull size, protection provided equals 2 times hull size, etc.

Make as few hardcoded elements as possible, and fully document the rules of hardcoded things. For instance, does anyone really know when the AI switches to each AI state?

Map Editor: Copy and Paste in the map editor. I want to copy this system from this map and paste it onto a different map (or paste planets, storms, etc.). Drag and drop would also be nice. Ability to rotate a system map by 90 degree increments could useful as well. If I give all the info for both sides of a warp point, can't the system generate the other side?

jowe01

May 22nd, 2003, 07:20 PM

Main wish: Better AI.
Please make the AI remember where you are, what you did to it, where it was beaten (and preferably why), etc.
Make it follow through on its attacks, not turn around once it has bombed one planet. It should see its opportunity to follow up on an already weakened opponent.
Let it use ground invasions.
...

Secondary wish: 3D, real time combat.
Now I know this is seen critical in the SE4 community. However, IMHO, criticism of 3D and real time combat does usually stem from the (very often true) assumption that gameplay/depth ist sacrificed for "eye candy". I also put much more emphasis on gameplay, but when I imagine "The Perfect Space Strategy Game", it actually has both, solid gameplay mechanics (like SE4 or better) and a "realistic" combat engine like e.g. homeworld (however dynamic, not scripted as in Homeworld). It is just fun if - after you build your empire, designed your ships and sent them to your ennemies - you actually feel as if the battle was real, as if you are in the battle.

Nice sideeffect from 3D, RT combat: it is more appealing to the general public and would hence generate more revenue for MM and Shrapnell. That in turn would be a good things for quality strategy gaming.

[ May 22, 2003, 18:22: Message edited by: jowe01 ]

Fyron

May 22nd, 2003, 09:32 PM

Actually, MM has been planning on making SE5 have 3D real time combat. The main game will never be real time, of course, just combat.

Krsqk

May 23rd, 2003, 01:20 AM

As long as it's fully pauseable RTC, and orders are issueable/changeable while paused. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Fyron

May 23rd, 2003, 01:24 AM

Well of course. Why would that not be the case? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Ed Kolis

May 23rd, 2003, 05:00 AM

Well, look at MOO3... I bought it almost three months ago and I've played it, what, maybe 3 times? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

tesco samoa

May 23rd, 2003, 05:10 PM

How is multi player going to work with RTC.....

I hope we can turn this off.....

Suicide Junkie

May 23rd, 2003, 05:26 PM

How is multi player going to work with RTC.....

I hope we can turn this off.....The exact same way it works now!

It can't be that hard to understand that with the computer controlling your ships in strategic combat, Realtime combat is no different that turn based combat and is no different from flipping a coin to decide which ships die.
The only thing you as a player do is sit back and watch the fireworks on the replay.

The only difference is in the accuracy of the simulation and the outcome!

PS:
Sorry if that sounded angry or something.
I just can't believe how many times the same thing has been said... Everybody needs thier turn to say it I guess.

[ May 23, 2003, 16:32: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ]

Ruatha

May 23rd, 2003, 05:47 PM

I might have written this:
I want a replay function like in Civ 1.
Where you can see the different empires spread on the map and highlights of the main events.

Loser

May 23rd, 2003, 05:57 PM

Originally posted by Slick:
a carriage return is a CTRL-M.
whoa....

That is the most useful thing I've heard all week. Is that in the FAQ?

Slick would have said if it were in the FAQ. Slick always lets you know if it's in the FAQ. But Slick knows it, so it must be in there somewhere...

Lisif Deoral

May 23rd, 2003, 11:00 PM

Multiplayer save games:IMO the only way to prevent hacking (to cheat or gather information about other players) is to send the players files which contain only what they know (not the entire galaxy status as in SEIV).

The .plr file should be changed to a simple list of commands ("ship 1 moves to Dornot 1,7; ship 2 renamed to MilleniumDuck; planet56 builds mineral_miner_1") - if any of the commands turn out to be illegal, they would be ignored.

Saving the .plr and/or turn files in simple text format (or another easy-to-read format) might be useful but would endanger the game sales (one might develop another game client to write .plr files). Enemy designs archive & LR scanners
Add the enemy designs "seen" by long-range scanners to the known enemy designs list! (I don't know if it already works this way in Gold...) Boolean operators
Some sort of boolean operators and variables available when giving orders. For example:
If an enemyship appears into range and is not part of a fleet with more than 10 ships then attack (intercept) that ship Giving players other roles (Warning: this is a major change!)
Not every player needs to play an emperor/president/whatever... You might be interested in playing only the combat part, or the empire micromanagement part, etc. Right now, you can do this, but everything else will be handled by the AI - what about giving control of these aspects of the empire to another human player? (obviously useful only in a MP game!)

The same model might have a lot of other interesting (and uncommon, at least in games I have played) uses:

* a "federation" game, with players controlling different zones of the same empire - and able to start a secession war or betray their sovereign

* being able to play something else than a true empire (for example, a galactic trading company)

* varying degrees of "affiliation" of units to more than a player (and eventually also "freelance" or independent units). For example, a frigate of the Dornot System Defense Fleet usually accepts commands only from the Dornot Governor (player1). Anyway, if the Governor rebels against his emperor, the frigate might decide to remain loyal to the Empire (and pass under the control of the emperor's player). This might be called "warlord mode"... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

tesco samoa

May 23rd, 2003, 11:46 PM

SJ I have asked it before, and no you do not sound angry.

Is what your saying 100% Fact ?

Ed Kolis

May 24th, 2003, 12:04 AM

Originally posted by Lisif Deoral:
Not every player needs to play an emperor/president/whatever... You might be interested in playing only the combat part, or the empire micromanagement part, etc. Right now, you can do this, but everything else will be handled by the AI - what about giving control of these aspects of the empire to another human player? (obviously useful only in a MP game!)Yes! YES!!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Like Play by Committee, only built into the game so SJ doesn't have to input everybody's orders! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif I imagine it would be a matter of setting up some sort of "permissions" system similar to the file system of Windows XP... whether that's feasible in a game or not I don't know http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Suicide Junkie

May 24th, 2003, 02:35 AM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
SJ I have asked it before, and no you do not sound angry.

Is what your saying 100% Fact ?It is 100% true that simultaneous turn battles have no input from the user during combat. You have no impact on the outcome other than your standing orders.

Making the combat system realtime does not change any of those facts.

---

Basically what you are asking for is a slide show instead of a movie for the combat replay! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ May 24, 2003, 03:18: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ]

Fyron

May 24th, 2003, 02:50 AM

Originally posted by Ed Kolis:
Well, look at MOO3... I bought it almost three months ago and I've played it, what, maybe 3 times? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif You can't use MOO3 as an example for anything other than how not to make a game. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

klausD

May 24th, 2003, 11:24 AM

Nice sideeffect from 3D, RT combat: it is more appealing to the general public and would hence generate more revenue for MM and Shrapnell. That in turn would be a good things for quality strategy gaming.Well the problem is that SE is not a quality strategy game anymore if Aaron introduces anything like realtime (pauseable or not) with SEV.

It is 100% true that simultaneous turn battles have no input from the user during combat. You have no impact on the outcome other than your standing orders.Yes this is true but what is with those many people which dont play simulataneously or with other people. As in every other serious TB strategy game there is (in chat or forums passive) also in SE a majority just playing against the computer and not against other humans. Some people in this forum tend to believe their way of playing only strategic combat, simultaneously and against humans is the only way SE is, can or should played. But out there in the the opposite is true.

tsch��
KlausD

Ruatha

May 24th, 2003, 12:28 PM

A "Seen ship" list, all enemy sightings this turn.

Suicide Junkie

May 24th, 2003, 06:09 PM

Some people in this forum tend to believe their way of playing only strategic combat, simultaneously and against humans is the only way SE is, can or should played. But out there in the the opposite is true.I have been in a total of maybe 10 simultaneous game combats to date. I just love tactical, myself.
However the question was about simultaneous play.

There are many good ways to implement a realtime tactical combat engine.
The ideal one for me would be stepped orders.

Take something like the current tactical combat, and resolve each combat turn the same sort of way that simultaneous game month turns are resolved now.
EG: Order your escort to move forward 2 squares, fire missiles, then retreat 2 squares. The enemy might have orders to stay put, and fire its 0.2 reload rate meson bLaster at anything that comes in range.
Once all the orders are in, hit end turn, watch the ships move and fire.
After that, your escort has 2&1/2 turn left of reloading on its missile, the missile is flying through space, and your ship has been hit 3 times, with the shield regenerator I adding one hitpoint between each hit you took (5 hp/turn = 1 hp in the time it took the meson bLasters to reload ).

Combat step size should be moddable, or even adjustable in combat. Set it to 5 se4-turns per step while charging towards the enemy, then down to small increments while dogfighting.

Fyron

May 25th, 2003, 08:29 AM

Well the problem is that SE is not a quality strategy game anymore if Aaron introduces anything like realtime (pauseable or not) with SEV.
You could not be any more wrong than that statement... Real time execution of combat can very easily be more strategically deep than se4's combat system (such as in SJ's post). Do not confuse real time with RTS games like Warcraft and such. Those games are a cruel abomination of strategy, and are not all that real time is. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Some people in this forum tend to believe their way of playing only strategic combat, simultaneously and against humans is the only way SE is, Who believes that? No one I have ever spoken to believes that.

[ May 25, 2003, 07:32: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Lisif Deoral

May 25th, 2003, 07:29 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Do not confuse real time with RTS games like Warcraft and such. Those games are a cruel abomination of strategy, and are not all that real time is. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Strategy? What strategy? Apart from having to decide what units you need, everything else sums up to "get as much money and as much units as you can" more often than not...

[ May 25, 2003, 18:33: Message edited by: Lisif Deoral ]

Fyron

May 25th, 2003, 09:39 PM

Which is why I said they are a cruel abomination of strategy... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

May 26th, 2003, 12:28 AM

How about:
1. Fighters that can be sent on missions away from their bases/carriers instead of being confined as they are? It would be nice to be able to send a swarm of fighters into a system ahead of the main fleet to soften things up before an invasion.

2. A larger playing field with more than 255 stars - say 500?

3. Neutral, non-spacefaring races, in various stages of development, that can be added to one's empire by either diplomatic persuasion or conquest?

4. Military bases on planets that troops can be stationed in without having to treat them like cargo with the appropriate room for cargo? Any invasion would have to conquer these bases before anything else? The bases should also have upgradable defenses.

5. Research modules for space stations/starbases, that would add to total research, and would/could contribute to a specific type of research if located in say, the same system as a black hole? This one could contribute research points to energy production/gravity research.

6. Power plants for space stations etc? Everything needs a power plant. Even one that could be knocked out prior to a takeover of the station.

7. The addition of cities to planets that would house the population. The more settlements/towns/cities there are, the more population on a planet.

8. One planetary government center per planet. Without which, a planetary governor cannot be appointed. This would also affect planetary population morale and stability.

9. A way to retreat from the combat screen instead of survivors being confined to the corner until oblivion occurs?

I have oodles of other suggestions but they'll be held back for another time.

Phoenix-D

May 26th, 2003, 01:54 AM

"Fighters that can be sent on missions away from their bases/carriers instead of being confined as they are? It would be nice to be able to send a swarm of fighters into a system ahead of the main fleet to soften things up before an invasion."

Apparently someone hasn't discovered the "launch fighters" button in SE4.. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Either that or you want fighters to be able to warp.

Taera

May 26th, 2003, 01:56 AM

this had been mentioned before but still, id realy like SE to have a if/then ability to program orders/strategies/ai. this would open endless possibilities and finally give us the long-sought-after campaign possibilities.

to balance things there should be an option "normal strategies/advanced options" and the latter would have to be okayed by all players to be used at all.

Ares

May 26th, 2003, 08:03 AM

This is my first post to this forum. YAAAY! I hope I don't screw it up. Anyway, I read through all 25 pages (3 hrs. of my life I'll never get back...) and here's my thoughts. Some are original ideas, some are expanded off of other ideas I read, and others are just some I saw and wanted to cast my "Yeah, me too!" vote on, but I completely lost track of which is which is which... And so, here they are, in ABSOLUTELY no particular order:

A peace treaty to cancel war and set current treaty to 'none'. And for that matter, treaty "packages" like trade packages to trade specific resources, perks, etc

A notes tab for empires and systems so I can record latest intelligence on a system or current treaty stipulations of an empire

Open-endded research!

Allow mods to add/change planet types and atmosphere. I also like the moddable resources idea, as well as the idea to make all ships/stations/planets/etc. generic "objects" that can be modded themselves.

More systems. Perhaps make a self-expanding galaxy. As all of the empires expand through certain thresholds, a certain number of systems are "discovered"

This whole block covers sensors/scanners/cloaks. I fully support sensors have ranges. If scanners do, why shouldn't sensors? Scanners and Scanner Jammers should have levels like cloaks/sensors. If my scanner beats your jammer, I can still scan you. Also, some things should modify cloak levels. If I have a level 4 cloak, but I'm using huge energy-hogs for engines, maybe that adds a -1 modifier to my cloak. If I have a cloaking device AND stealth armor, maybe I should get a +1 bonus to my cloaking device level.

Someone mentioned neutral empires that you can incorporate into yours through force, persuasion, or by them wanting to. I second this motion. Then you can really create a "United Federation of Planets" with many races, each with their own attributes, which ARE saved (second-ing that motion too).

I'd like to be able to mod the turn times. I know the number of comabat turns (both space and planet) are like this, but what if I want each game-turn to represent a day rather than a month? I could set the time elapsed per turn to .2 (five days/week) and between the game turns (in the replay) to 24 (hours), with combat in simultaneous games very 6 hours, or something similar.

I like the towing idea too. Perhaps tractor beams can double as tow-hooks. The vessels movement is reduced based on the size of the vessel been towed, to the point where the vessel can't move at all.
more stars self-expanding galaxy?
xpace facilities/stations/ships

I preferred SE3's setup that let you assign your initial tech levels rather that IV's "everyone gets the same tech at the start, no matter what." You could customize you race's tech specialties before the game ever started. I also preferred their research and agree with whoever suggested SEV's be like it. Intelligence could be done the same way. I'd have to select the specifics for each project, then assign percentages. And while I'm on the subject of intelligence (my favorite part) I think you should be able to select a possible empire to frame for ANY project, just in case you happen to have it happen, rather than it being random.

I'd like to be able to send more than one message to an empire per turn. I can send him a treaty offer, make the text block an "official" treaty (with stipulations like neutral and demilitarized zones, length of treaty, etc.) Then send a number of general Messages with information that crops up throughout my turn.

Someone made the suggestion of people as a resource. I like this, and it can even be expanded on. Make crew required for ships, and have specialized crew. Captain can function as a bridge, XO - auxiliary control, weapons crew provides a bonus to attack (perhaps set the base attack at 80% or 90%, with weaopns crew compensating), engineering crew that can repair systems, etc. I realize that much of this can be modded in (which I'm working on). Then you can transfer an experienced crew to a new ship and scrap the old one, or train a crew at a military college before they ever set foot on a startship (perhaps not as high experience). This would also tie in with my intelligence idea. Perhaps intelligence is conducted by operatives posing as crew members. You sneak them aboard enemy ships, then they send out Messages (at the cost of a chance to be detected) intelligence regarding the location of space they are in. If you want to affect operations on a certain ship or planet, you order them (also putting them in risk of capture) to that location, which they must reach by hopping from ship to station to ship to planet, etc. Each operative is listed in the intelligence window, with a percentage of funding assigned to each to affect his performance.

I like the idea of building ships component-by-component. If the spaceyards automatically assembled after all the components were complete, would everybody be happy? This would also allow you to build extra components so you can also play the role of "arms dealer". Or you could store them as cargo so your ship has a backup in case a critical system has been destroyed. Perhaps it requires an engineering team to make the replacement.

Mines should be targeted at random ships, with a cap on the number per ship. That will allow mines with special damage typeds (only engines, for example) without wasting 100 mines on 1 ship.

ranged boarding, so I can use transporters to beam my troops directly to an enemy ship. Additionally, a type that skips shields so I can create "phased transporters" or something similar. Also, boarding attacks should be more complex, with both teams volleying back and forth. If one side is doing well, they don't receive as many casualties (resulting in fewer boarding partys/security stations being destroyed). If the boarding is doing well, perhaps they have a chance to secure the bridge and disable the self-destruct device before it has a chance to go off.

It should be possible to order ships through a warp point that hasn't opened yet, but will be soon, so I can order a ship to open a wormhole, zip though it, and close it in the same turn (Did I mention ships shouldn't lose remaining movement with stellar manipulations? At least make it component ability that can be modded)

create/destroy planets/stars not instantaneous, but instead creating an instability like the special events. Using create star/planet (or a new tech: stabilize star/planet) on an existing one that has been destablized can prevent this. Or perhaps create two creates and two destoys. Based on their tech, maybe it's instantaneous, maybe it's not.

Not sure about gold, but I don't think all destroyed-on-use components have that ability moddable, but are instead hardcoded. That should be revised.

As for any and all people who want better, faster, more controllable tactical combat (better AI excluded), as long as there is still strategic, I don't care, but I will never use tactical combat. Ever. I am the ruler of an empire, not a ship captain. I am nowhere near the battle, and, in "reality"(?), have no knowledge of the battle until after its happend (or at very least, not accurate, up-to-date knowledge) It's the ship captains and fleet commanders who control that aspect of the empire, not me.

race name should be different from empire name. What if I want to play humans, but I want my empire to be called "The Star League", not "The Human Star League"?

As for everyone wanting a hexagonal grid to better deal with the hypoteneuse problem, I really don't care one way or 'tother, but this idea used in pen & paper rpgs could be used. On a square map, diagonal movement costs an extra movement point for every other movement diagonal movement that turn (1 - 2 - 1 - 2, etc) This takes care of the Pythagorean dilemma.

I am a HUGE fan of ships travelling THROUGH space rather than skipping over it (hyper/warp drives vs/ warp points). While I certainly apreciate the random wormhhole every now and again, that should not be the only method of traversing the galaxy. Maybe have several different types of propulsion. Hyper/warp drive that travels at FTL speeds to other systems. These can be "piled on" to allow faster speeds even at lower tech levels. Another is jump drives. These are extremely costly in terms of supplies/light-years travelled (less so at higher levels), but provide 1-turn travel to any system if the ship pays the cost. The standard opening and closing warp points ("jump gates") can be a third option. Only one of these methods would be available to an empire at the start of the game, though it (possibly) can be traded among them. I'd like to be able to set up a perimeter around my empire. Place long range sensor buoys around it that can detect (though probably not identify) approaching ships.

I'm also a big fan of a game none of you probably ever heard call Xpace made by a company called Xoftware that never Lasted long enough to complete the game, though I personally thought it showed huge promise (I think it was one of those three-guys-working-out-of-their-garage type company, though I'm not sure about it.) The propulsion system in that game was virtually identical to the one I just described. Another key element was that the emperor (YOU!) physically existed. You were located on a planet (or starship, or whatever.) While this played several minor roles (the morale of the location of the emperor increases, for example), it really played one key role: Communication. In this game, the further away you were from a ship, the longer it would take to receive information from that shiip. Communication was a technology that could be researched like any other. The higher the technology, the larger the radius ships can communicate to in a single turn. Communications relays could be used to extend that range. If enough relays were in place, I could receive a message from halfway across the galaxy in a single turn. Otherwise, it could take quite some time. Of course, if there was something you wanted to focus your attention on, you could reduce your communication lag by hopping a ship there. In that game, you needed a lot of cargo space to accomodate the emporer and his equipment/staff. In this game, you could even make it a seperate component that houses him (...wondering what that "palace" in abilities.txt is for...)

Well, anyway, that's all for my. Now that everyone is thoroughly bored, I'll let you get back to your lives. I'm sure you have a lot to add...

[ May 27, 2003, 04:35: Message edited by: Ares ]

klausD

May 26th, 2003, 09:03 AM

You could not be any more wrong than that statement... Real time execution of combat can very easily be more strategically deep than se4's combat system (such as in SJ's post). Do not confuse real time with RTS games like Warcraft and such. Those games are a cruel abomination of strategy, and are not all that real time is. I dont confuse your idea of realtime with "games" like C&C. I am sure that you have a more "advanced" Version in mind. But as always I would like to raise my voice (with a few others) against Aarons plans to make tactical combat realtime like his new game Starfury. I want to show him that not everyone goes d�accord with his plan.

I would rather wish that he invests his energy in making the AI better or improve the colony/economical management options in the game than riding on the current realtime wave.

tsch��
KlausD

Krsqk

May 26th, 2003, 09:06 AM

I would rather wish that he invests his energy in making the AI better or improve the colony/economical management options in the game than riding on the current realtime wave.Of course, if we get both, maybe we'll all be happy..........Nah. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Fyron

May 26th, 2003, 11:25 AM

Real time or pseudo real time is really the only good way to have combat. No pure turn-based system can possibly be made that has realistic/good combat. Turn-based combat just has so many silly factors in it that it is, well, silly. Weapons need to be able to fire at the same time. You should never be able to fire every weapon you have in a "round". That makes no sense. Why should you be able to fire all your weapons before the enemy can react? Combat needs to have many, many small, incremental "phases" in order to get any degree of realism. Why not go that extra step and greatly simplify the rules by making it real time? You get the same effects, but without all the baggage of complex phase systems. Why should combat be broken up into disjoint "rounds" anyways? That is very unrealistic, and adds many other levels of silliness to the whole thing. Why can my ships only take action every (insert time frame here, such as minute)? They should be able to act at all times. A combat system where you give orders, and then watch them executed for a given time unit (such as in BOTF) (pseudo-real time combat, btw), is also silly. Is there some magical barrier preventing orders from being recieved at all but very specific time intervals? Silly, if you ask me.

And please, don't try any tired old arguments about pacing and click-festing. The simple solution of issuing orders while paused eliminates all such concerns very nicely. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif In fact, this allows you to make combat just like a BOTF-esque system, just with customizeable "turn" lengths. Win-win situation, really. A rather elegant solution for hotseat games would be to have the players agree on a time interval during which the game can be paused, with so much time that the game has to be unpaused. If both players hit the unpause button before the pause timer runs out, the game unpauses. You don't ever play hotseat (only MP game with tactical combat) with random strangers, do you? Probably not. Against just the AI, you can easily take as much time as you want, just like with Se4 tactical combat. And in other MP games, all combat is strategic, so having real time combat has no possible negative effects in such a situation. And don't say the AI making poor decisions is a negative effect of real time combat. Just go watch a strategic battle replay in se4. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Mephisto

May 26th, 2003, 10:03 PM

Originally posted by Ares:
It should be possible to order ships through a warp point that hasn't opened yet, but will be soon, so I can order a ship to open a wormhole, zip though it, and close it in the same turn (Did I mention ships shouldn't lose remaining movement with stellar manipulations? At least make it component ability that can be modded)
That can already be done in simultaneous. It's just a matter of timing.

Suicide Junkie

May 26th, 2003, 10:23 PM

Mines should be targeted at random ships, with a cap on the number per ship. That will allow mines with special damage typeds (only engines, for example) without wasting 100 mines on 1 ship.That already happens.
Mines with special warheads will not detonate if they cannot do any damage (eg ion mines when no engines remain on enemy ships)

cholerajoe

May 26th, 2003, 11:19 PM

I am a casual player of SE IV Gold. I could get at least one more player (buyer) of SEIV if we could get multi player to work easily. I bought the game based on a PC Gamer review and I do not regret it. So I told my friend about ittold him to buy it. He said let me check it out before I buy it. I told him he's a cheap *** http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif .

So I "gave" him my copy to play with. He liked it and said he would buy it if we could get multi play to work. We spent two days trying to get PBW, TCP/IP or even PB-email to work. We play alot of on-line games and have had to configure our routers and such before. But no matter what we did we could not figure out how to get multi-player to work.

I thought it might be because we are using the same game on two different computers and I was going to buy another copy to verify this. But the experiance left a rough taste for him. I called him up the other day and he said he'd be up for a game if I could figure it out.

What I want is easy TCP/IP play. This would include a timed turn and easy multi-player save feature. I'm going to be buying, probably, two more copies SEIV 4 Gold.

Taera

May 26th, 2003, 11:52 PM

PBW is very easy to figure out. you might want to get some of the more experienced people to explain you how to setup games, except for that its all plain.

TCP/IP - this one is awesome but troubleful, try looking for Imperator Fyron (http://www.shrapnelgames.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=009097;p=2) as he is experienced with the TCP/IP (at least AFAIK).

Magnum357

May 28th, 2003, 08:39 AM

Ok, here are three things I would like to see in SEV. Actually, they are features from SEIII that were not included in SEIV.

-First, Bring back the old "Armor/Outer Hull/Inner Hull" of ship design that was in SEIII. I thought this was a far more interesting ship design concept that the one in SEIV. For those who don't know what I'm talking about, the three hulls worked like this. In the Armor section, you added your main armor to this part (you could add other components too the Armor section if you redesigned them in the outside mod file). All damage was applied to the Armor section first. Then their was Outter hull and the Inner hull. You had the option of placing your components in etheir section, placing components in the Inner hull gave greater protection from incoming fire (ie, outer hull components had greater odds of getting destroyed first). The disadvantage to this was that you where only allowed to place 10% of all component space in the Armor section and only 20 (or was it 25, can't remember) in the inner hull tops. The outer hull housed the bulk of all your components with the rest (70 or 75%). This was a really neat system and with the addition of outside .txt editing files, I could see some people making some really interesting desing concepts.

-Second suggestion, I would really like to see the return of ships able to leave dock even if they were not complete or damaged from a previous battle. For example, you could have a DN being constructed in a Space Yard that was going to take about 6 months to build. Now SEIII had a different way of contructing ships then in SEIV (you could actually see the components of the vessel being contructed each month as time progressed) but it was cool to be able to lauch that dreadnaught only half or 3/4 complete into battle as an emergency. Heck, in SEIII you could have several ships under construction and if an enemy attacked the ship yard, the could target the partially constructed ships in Dry Dock and try to destroy them! Very slick feature SEIII had here, and I always thought it was more realistic then the mechanism used now in SEIV where ships are just aloted time in the ship construction Q.

-Third request, I would like to see the return of the old Tactical combat selector from SEIII. SEIV's is basically a copy of SEIII's, but their were some other stuff in the thrid addition that strangly where not added to SEIV (very odd). I can't remember exactly how it worked, but the interface for fleet control was much more percise where you could tell what ships you wanted to attack by "power points" (or something like that). Like for example, you could tell your fighters to engage at optimum range against the enemy's fighters only if your strength was >1.25 (if your strenght was greater then 125 percent) higher then the enemy. If was was lower, you had a secondary objective which could be "if greater then 1.25, engage capitol ships at Maximum range" etc, etc. Anwyay, its a little different then this, but if you ever get SEIII you will notice right way that the the Fleet tactical options are actually better in this Version then in SEIV in my opinion.

And a forth request, bring back disengagement please! Or at least have it as an option. In SEIII, your ships where allowed to disengage a battle if it reached the edge of a map. Granted, this resulted in Colony ships for example always out racing warships and never able to catch them (this was a big problem). A way to keep this in check could be to limit a ships disengagement where you can only disengage once per Strategic Turn. That way, a persuing force could still chase the enemy even after they did a "Hit and run" engagement.

Just a few suggestions I wanted to post.

Shapeshifter

May 31st, 2003, 08:54 PM

I agree completely with Magnum357 .

This old features from SE III where very good,and it would be nice to have tham also included in SeV.

Fyron

May 31st, 2003, 10:29 PM

The SE3 Armor/Outer Hull/Inner Hull design scheme was overly simplistic, and should not be included as it was. It should be revamped to be better than how it was in SE3, with more complexity than just 3 areas.

narf poit chez BOOM

June 1st, 2003, 07:07 AM

a full mechanical and electrical, 3d workup. as long as there was a button for 'auto make'. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Phoenix-D

June 1st, 2003, 07:14 AM

"It should be revamped to be better than how it was in SE3, with more complexity than just 3 areas."

Like..?

We don't need to get too overboard with the micromanagement of ship sections.

Mathias_Ice

June 1st, 2003, 04:08 PM

How about a Linux Version? Does SEIV run well under one of the Windoze emulators for Linux? Seems to me this game is ideally suited for the type of people that are Linux Users.

Rigelian

June 2nd, 2003, 05:00 PM

How about eliminating the critical 'first shot' factor in large battles? Simple to do - move and fire the ships one at a time, player A then player B. Just randomising who gets to fire ALL their weapons first was not enough in my opinion.

Eliminate any possiblity of reducing the maintenance costs, to keep fleet sizes down.

Make the formations and strategies a bit more sophisticated. For example, I would normally set all ships to break formation - but I can't do this with a fleet that I want to capture a planet. Or perhaps an assault ship would hold back on unloading its entire complement of napalm bombs if the fleet is supposed to be capturing the planet, not wiping it.

I personally don't care about the AI or tactical/tcpip combat, its PBW or nothing for me http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

The inner/outer/armour is interesting, in fact it seems to be lifted straight from an optional rule in the old 'Starfire' pen and paper game. In that, it quickly became a PITA because we wanted to do large battles, not translate SFB scenarios, and it was too much detail. It might work better in a computer game though... I'm sure most players would not mind spending extra time on design, and the combat calculations are automatic anyway. To see what's going on, you would want to see the damage status of a ship DURING the combat replay though.

Trade bonus based on the smaller economy not the larger. Much more sensible and eliminates 'phantom economies'.

Add some 'negative' special racial characteristics that would GIVE you points to spend on other stuff.
- being so disgusting nobody would sign treaties with you (I've seen that somewhere else, MOO perhaps?).
- specific races being unable to use specific technologies - perhaps a race of 3 mm midgets that could not have Troops, or a religious ban on using SM tech, or ethical objections to Mines..
- 10-metre sentient elephants needing double supplies and crew quarters, or races where you had to keep replacing the ship crews because they couldn't tolerate space travel..

More variation in the 'hit probability profile' of different weapons.
- minimum ranges for missiles and torpedoes
- weapons with massive tail-off, say 30% less likely to hit per square in range not 10%
- the converse, some weapons which only decline by 5% per square or so

Echo the request for either
a) hexes
b) 1.5 movement points to move diagonally

dogscoff

June 2nd, 2003, 05:39 PM

How about a Linux Version? Does SEIV run well under one of the Windoze emulators for Linux? Seems to me this game is ideally suited for the type of people that are Linux Users.
We have seen reports on this forum of successful se4 under emulation on Linux. Run a forum search for Wine, filter out the alcoholic ramblings of ppl discussing red vs white vino and see what you get.

Suicide Junkie

June 2nd, 2003, 05:49 PM

How about eliminating the critical 'first shot' factor in large battles? Simple to do - move and fire the ships one at a time, player A then player B. Just randomising who gets to fire ALL their weapons first was not enough in my opinion.That's a major advantage of real time combat.

While the enemy beam weapons are incoming, your ships can launch torpedoes: only having a longer range will let you fire first, and even that dosen't guarantee you'll hit first, since torpoedoes are slower than lasers http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ June 02, 2003, 16:52: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ]

LGM

June 2nd, 2003, 07:09 PM

I would love to see construction queues start the next item with carry over capacity. There is so much micromanagement with creating a ship design and a scaled down Version that you can build in one or two less turns and retrofit to a full Versions, just to get the ship cost to utilize capacity as full as possible.

Retrofitting should take shipyard capacity so that retrofitting is not a loophole past the capacity limit!

Weapon balance should be more carefully considered in designing the game.

Fyron

June 2nd, 2003, 08:03 PM

Make the formations and strategies a bit more sophisticated. For example, I would normally set all ships to break formation - but I can't do this with a fleet that I want to capture a planet. Yes you can. Make sure both the fleet and the troop transports have Capture Planet strategies. They can break formation as much as you like.

Or perhaps an assault ship would hold back on unloading its entire complement of napalm bombs if the fleet is supposed to be capturing the planet, not wiping it. If you are using the correct strategies, ships stop firing on planets as soon as the weapon platforms are destroyed. With low population, it is possible for the Last shot to do enough extra damage to glass the planet as well as destroy the Last WP.

[ June 02, 2003, 19:07: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Rigelian

June 3rd, 2003, 01:18 AM

Yes you can. Make sure both the fleet and the troop transports have Capture Planet strategies. They can break formation as much as you like.
I will have to try this again in a solo game.. I thought that this would result in the ships wiping the planet before the transport could get there. I always follow that scheme in any event (fleet AND troopship set to 'capture planet'), but I thought I had to keep the fleet in formation.

If you are using the correct strategies, ships stop firing on planets as soon as the weapon platforms are destroyed. With low population, it is possible for the Last shot to do enough extra damage to glass the planet as well as destroy the Last WP.
Yeah, the low-pop scenario is what concerns me. The problem is, each ship will unload all or none of its ordnance on that Last turn - and if we are talking about the multiple napalm-bomb ships I use for planetary assault, they often wipe out the 100M+ pop in the final volley. What I was looking for was for the ship to fire 'em one at a time, so that there is a chance of preserving the population.

Fyron

June 3rd, 2003, 01:46 AM

Yeah, the low-pop scenario is what concerns me. The problem is, each ship will unload all or none of its ordnance on that Last turn - and if we are talking about the multiple napalm-bomb ships I use for planetary assault, they often wipe out the 100M+ pop in the final volley. What I was looking for was for the ship to fire 'em one at a time, so that there is a chance of preserving the population. No they don't. If using the right strategies (default capture planet), direct fire weapons stop being fired as soon as there are no weapon platforms left. A ship will not fire 6 direct fire weapons if the first 2 finish off the Last WP. Now, seeker weapons (which napalm is not one of, it is direct fire) cause a problem because all of them get fired off before the damage from any is done, so too many will get launched. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Do you have SE4 Gold, or regular SE4?

[ June 03, 2003, 00:47: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Rigelian

June 4th, 2003, 01:32 AM

I have regular SE4. I did not upgrade to Gold because (I am told) it doesn't fix any of the problems I really care about. And drones are useless apparently. I will definitely upgrade to SE5 when it comes out, or go to Gold if I run out of 1.49 opponents.. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

The situation I keep encountering is my ships blowing sub-100M pop planets out of the water, and I had thought that they were unloading all their ordnance into it.. possibly it could be that the large napalm bombs 3 are taking out too much pop in one shot? Is there a way of relating damage points to population loss so I can work it out?

Fyron

June 4th, 2003, 01:57 AM

tesco samoa

June 4th, 2003, 02:34 AM

when you look at the colony window... You can sort by planet type ( ice , rock , gas.. )

Rigelian

June 4th, 2003, 02:00 PM

Check settings.txt for the damage to kill one population setting (I forget exactly what it is called). I do not recall what the value is. But basically, take damage done / that number and that is how much pop you can kill in each shot. Planetary Napalm III may well be able to kill those <100 M people.
Aha, there it is.
Damage Points To Kill One Population:= 10
Those monster napalm bombs are going to be doing about 800 if I remember correctly, so that plus the 'overspill' from the Last WP hits is going to finish off 100M pop more often than not.
Thanks.

What are the problems you really care about that were not fixed in Gold? Maybe they have been fixed in a recent patch and your friend is unaware of the fixes? For the detailed arguments see my earlier Posts in this forum, rather than me repeating them here. But my top ones would be:

- trade relationship values should be based on smaller economy
- edge effects (don't want to rehash that one again!) - even if I accept the additive system, there is still that massive dropoff at max range
- Volley fire (player A fires all, then B fires all). There's no processor-power reason to persist with that I'm sure. Alternating fire would take a lot of the luck out of big battles.

These are the ones that can't be modded away or dealt with by house rules. I have a lot of issues like that, but they would be the same in 1.49 or Gold.

Then there are some PITA user interface issues, like not being able to jump from ALL the lists to the planets or ships. The one-or-all fleet windows. Not being able to assign the same build to multiple queues at a time. No context menus. Non-sizable list windows in general. No option to turn off the graphics and get more items in a list. No use of high resolution screens. Can't tell a freighter to load until it is full, or a minelayer to lay up to the limit, or pre-order a freighter to pick up/drop off less than the maximum. No zoomable/scrollable galaxy map.

Basically Gold doesn't give me anything extra that I think is needed. But then, I haven't kept up with the patches lately - what would you say are the main advantages of Gold? And BTW, that list looks like I hate the game, doesn't it? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif . Actually its my favourite computer game, but I think a few small fixes would make it so much better.

teal

June 4th, 2003, 02:23 PM

I wish you could sort the planet list by size and distance from existing colonizers. These are the attributes that I usually care the most about... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Phoenix-D

June 4th, 2003, 05:34 PM

Rigelian: Gold adds a -lot- of stuff in the patches, though a lot of it is for better modding. It also fixes the stupid player order determines who shoots first thing.

"Not being able to assign the same build to multiple queues at a time"

And that, if it wasn't in 1.49. Shift-click the build lists you want then click Multi Add.

Fyron

June 4th, 2003, 08:59 PM

Multi add was added in 1.60 (gold). One thing it does not allow is multi adding facilities. But you can always use Fill Queues to make filling new planets a snap. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Me Loonn

June 5th, 2003, 11:39 AM

Hope the repeat order in queue to be made so that each item in the queue get built in order, top first then second and so on to the bottom. And THEN repeat it from the top again. Current repeat only does the top over and over. Its good to have but it lacks something.

Fyron

June 5th, 2003, 08:40 PM

That should be a separate order..

cybersol

June 6th, 2003, 10:21 AM

Ok, the great rocks-paper-scissors strategy article by Stone Mill got me thinking about a way to improve the ai. I still think a scripting type language would be the most flexible solution for the ai, but I also realize that parsing and compilers are not everyone's specialty!

The idea is to give the AI rocks-papers-scissors capability. I think it could be implemented relatively easily even in the SEIV scheme of things.

First, for each ship type, say "Light Attack Ship", in designcreation the hard code keeps stats (over the most recent 20 turns for example) on the total damage done by each weapon family to that ship type. At redesign time note the weapon to do the most damage.

Then under weapons family pick for that type in designcreation you use some special family like -1 or something to indicate that ship type uses rock-paper-scissor capability. If it does, then that same ship type will be found in a rock-paper-scissors.txt file. In this file you first list the ship type then family pairs. For example, 2->6 for point defense to counter capital ship missles. If the first majority (or secondary) weapon family is the special one then it looks into the rocks-paper-scissors file with the most damaging weapon family number (say 2 CSM in this case) to find the counter weapon family number (6 point defense here). Then it uses that counter weapon family as the majority (or secondary) weapon type for this redesign period.

The changes required would be to keep the statistics and parse the extra rocks-papers-scissors file (and the fun error checking between the two files). All in all, not too hard to implement, but it would greatly increases the ability of the ai to respond dynamically to situations.

Also, it would still be fully moddable!

dogscoff

June 6th, 2003, 10:58 AM

Nice idea for the AI there.

As for the repeat build thing- I've said it before and I'll say it again: Programming-type functions for ship orders.
(If/Then, Loop, Gretaer than/ less than etc, and a whole bunch of variables pulled from the game environment to pwork with)

If these were implemented, it probably wouldn't be too hard to extend some similar functionality into construction queues as well:

<blockquote>code:<hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Build [spaceport]

repeat
{
Build [mineral miner]
}
until [facilities_on_planet(mineralminer)>=4]

build [robotoid factory]

repeat
{
Build [mineral miner]
}
until [facilities_slots_free=0]

Do
{
Build[fighter_design_1]
}
Loop</pre><hr /></blockquote>Crappy pseudocode but you get the idea.

Erax

June 6th, 2003, 03:44 PM

Just elaborating on some of the more recent ideas :

- Retrofitting - should be a job in the construction queue. It takes up manpower resources same as building a ship, right ? A simultaneous build option would also be nice.

- Alternating fire - give each ship/base/satellite/fighter/platform an 'initiative rating' based on their size, speed and type. Let them move and fire in order of initiative.

Suicide Junkie

June 6th, 2003, 03:52 PM

Retrofitting does use up your worker's time...
It just uses the repair crew to install replacement parts instead of the build workers.

With real time combat, you will get an infinitely fine-grained initiative system.

Erax

June 6th, 2003, 09:26 PM

Your repair crew is the absolute minimum number of people required to keep everything running. If you take on a big job like a retrofit, you hire more people or pull them off other projects. And your industry has to build the spare parts, which could have been used on a brand new ship, etc. etc. (I don't think you'd keep a spare ion engine just lying around, if you need something big like that you build it).

Regarding RT combat, I wish Malfador would go the X-Com Apocalypse way and give us both options : regular turn-based tactical or real-time tactical combat.

Me Loonn

June 6th, 2003, 11:09 PM

Real time ? is that +5 GMT ? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

(Things with 'real time - ' at beginning, BURN 'EM ALL !)

Ed Kolis

June 7th, 2003, 01:54 AM

Originally posted by teal:
I wish you could sort the planet list by size and distance from existing colonizers. These are the attributes that I usually care the most about... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif For the first one - sort by planet pic, I think it sorts first by atmosphere, but for each atmosphere type the larger ones show up on the bottom... of course if you're using the imagemod that might change things...

Me Loonn

June 7th, 2003, 12:37 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
That should be a separate order..Then how about allowing 'Fill Queue' and 'Clear Queue' orders to be used with 'multi-add' ? also need order to remove single item from all queues at once, with one order. Something like 'Remove From Queues'; first click that order then add to 'remove list' the facilities, units and ships that you want to remove from ALL queues.
I think that would cut down micromanagement by amazing amount.
I _really_ want some way to manage huge empires for it takes upto 3 hours to finish a turn in large galaxy FQM games. I like massive empires but not with this much 'select next colony - fill queue - repeat' http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

-edit: typos-

[ June 07, 2003, 11:38: Message edited by: Me Loonn ]

Me Loonn

June 7th, 2003, 02:45 PM

Or just 'Add To All' and 'Remove From All' (queues) order.
Multi-add still too slow even if 'fill queue' could be used (need to shift-click ALL those 200+ colonies isnt fun). Game should just ignore the items added by 'add to all' if no available facility slots / cargo space.

-edit-
Also, an order for jetsoning all obsolite cargo items shoud be there, one button order !
PLEASE ! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

[ June 07, 2003, 13:49: Message edited by: Me Loonn ]

Fyron

June 7th, 2003, 10:44 PM

Originally posted by Me Loonn:
(Things with 'real time - ' at beginning, BURN 'EM ALL !)*sigh*

Warcraft has really put a bad name on the term real time. Real time can be (and is) a good thing if used properly. Why are you so prejudiced against real time? There are plenty of good examples of real time in games that are absolutley not click fests or anything of that nature. Combat systems such as in Birth of the Federation are real time, but have certain time intervals of real time, followed by a pause in which you issue new orders. How is this bad? It isn't, except that you get more options if you allow the turn intervals to be user defined (ie: continuous real time with being able to pause and issue orders).

Me Loonn

June 8th, 2003, 12:10 AM

Lol
i had some comments but now this reply was empty when i edited some typos away n whole msg with them... sigh i goto sleep now....

[ June 07, 2003, 23:14: Message edited by: Me Loonn ]

Suicide Junkie

June 8th, 2003, 12:52 AM

Your repair crew is the absolute minimum number of people required to keep everything running. If you take on a big job like a retrofit, you hire more people or pull them off other projects. And your industry has to build the spare parts, which could have been used on a brand new ship, etc. etc. (I don't think you'd keep a spare ion engine just lying around, if you need something big like that you build it).No, your repair crew is the space and mainteance you pay on that space station's repair bay, (or the repair ability of the space yard).

Using the repair ability dosen't cost your economy anything more...
Not using it causes your resources to go to waste maintaining an idle repair bay.

Ed Kolis

June 12th, 2003, 10:33 PM

"Hidden race trait" option so you can't see what race traits your opponents picked... they might just have organic weapons in reserve, but you'll never know until you see them in combat!

Better yet, discover your opponents' race traits through intel - at least the non-obvious ones...

Fyron

June 12th, 2003, 10:53 PM

Add 10 dummy traits at the beginning of the file and instruct everyone to take those. This will cause the info box that shows racial traits for an empire be filled with the dummies, and the real traits will be pushed off and unviewable. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Suicide Junkie

June 12th, 2003, 11:00 PM

Or just two traits with really long names... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Fyron

June 13th, 2003, 12:37 AM

That could work too. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

tesco samoa

June 13th, 2003, 01:11 AM

The ability to set ship yards to build for a fleet... THe ships automaticly move to the fleet and join them.

The ability to to tranfer cargo just to fleets... and the ships in that specific fleet...

The ability to set up automatic trades with other empires.

Lots of sorting spread sheets... more than you could use...

And a selectable fog of war.

Level 1 . see all ( as it is now )
Level 2. See some ( select what shows up )
Level 3. See nothing ( no stats on other players , ship names , planet names etc... ) You would assign your own names to the ships ) And then when you scan a ship if it has stuff you know it goes by the assigned name...

Atrocities

June 13th, 2003, 01:30 AM

In the three years that I have been a fan of SEIV I must have posted at least a 1,000 suggestions for SEIV and SE V. I stand by them all as good ideas, and despite my desire to see them all implamented, I would settle for the just the following.

1. In stead of naming the next game Space Empires V, name it Atrocities in the Stars

2. That I be given a copy of the game for free.
3. That I get to make ship sets for it.
4. That both Malfador and Shrapnel get top honors for the game
5. That both Malfador and Shrapnel make bookoo bucks off of the game
6. And most importantly, everyone who buys the game loves it so much that they by a second copy just in case something should happen to their first copy.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Me Loonn

June 13th, 2003, 03:47 AM

rofl Atrocities ...
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

TerranC

June 13th, 2003, 04:09 AM

Originally posted by Atrocities:
3. That I get to make ship sets for it.Atrocities = Bill Gates of Shipset making? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ June 13, 2003, 03:10: Message edited by: TerranC ]

Ed Kolis

June 13th, 2003, 04:37 AM

Here's another idea... hidden stellar abilities!

Wouldn't it add to the eXperience (yes, I know, a MOO3 term http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif ) of the game if you could actually discover new things and (gasp!) not know what they are right away! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

Also, from a realism standpoint... "Sir, this nebula we discovered has a shield sapping effect... no, sir, I have no idea what a 'shield' is, we haven't researched them yet!" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

So what I'm suggesting is, stellar abilities could be tagged with a prerequisite, much like components, facilities, tech areas, etc., and until you reach that tech level, the ability remains hidden - active, but hidden. You might wonder why enemy ships are disappearing in that one system... until you develop the right level of sensors, the best you can do is track them down and try to figure out that that one asteroid belt over there has a cloaking effect! Or maybe the star in the Paradise system is unstable... but until you research Astrophysics 3, you don't know, so you colonize all the optimal conditions 150% value planets there, not knowing that the star will blow up in 50 turns! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Katchoo

June 13th, 2003, 06:33 AM

How about making a Pocket PC Version of SE5?

No?

Ok, then at least make SE4 Pocket PC compatible. I need something to do when away from my desktop.

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

Narrew

June 13th, 2003, 06:57 AM

I would like to see a priority list that would tie in with the Transport Minister (for population). If it could be done where you say something like. Take people from Planets with populations > 4000 Million AND where total Pop > 90% of Max Pop (so you wont take all the people off, and if you go below that point, the minister will look for another planet to draw from), then to fill planets you would have something like Deliver to Same Atmosphere, Condition > Mild, Happiness > 15%, Nearest (ect...).

Another Minister option is to gather (from cargo) mines/fighter/sats from storage and deliver to other planets.

The ability to increase the amount of facilities a planet can have. Make it high research.

The ability to group space stations to work together to build larger ships, either speed them up or a special ship that can't be built by a planet space yard.

Hrothgar

June 13th, 2003, 07:32 AM

This is a huge thread, so it may have been mentioned previously, but, if racial traits are part of SEV, I hope that none of them are as dominating as Advanced Storage is in SEIV. There's no way to make a competitive AI race without using it--and I imagine it's a necessary choice for a race for multiplayer also. It limits the racial diversity otherwise possible in the game when EVERY good race has the Advanced Storage trait. If the cost of the choice truly reflected the power it gives, then you might be able to choose a different mix and still have a prayer, but, as it stands in SEIV, any race without it is seriously disadvantaged before you even press the "Begin Game" button.

narf poit chez BOOM

June 13th, 2003, 08:03 AM

you can mod that to cost more.

Loser

June 13th, 2003, 04:05 PM

Originally posted by Atrocities:
6. And most importantly, everyone who buys the game loves it so much that they by a second copy just in case something should happen to their first copy.I kinda did that. After building a new system I couldn't find the first one and didn't want to wait around for it to turn up. I had just gotten fed up with MoO3 and needed SE IV to help me down.

Bought Gold again, and three days after it arrives my roommate comes downstairs to ask me if I can help him figure out this game.... SEIV g, that he had borrowed. I might even have known at the time.... no telling.

CNCRaymond

June 13th, 2003, 05:28 PM

has any one thought about organizing this thread and all of the suggestions into a memo for Aaron?

Fyron

June 13th, 2003, 09:20 PM

Aaron has gotten all of these suggestions, plus more. That, and I bet he reads this thread from time to time. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
you can mod that to cost more.That is a poor solution. The game should not require modding in order to attain some semblance of balance. Racial traits should have been balanced back in the SE4 beta, or in the first patch at the latest. Alas, they were not. And don't try to tell me every 1000 point trait is worth the same. Mechanoids or Advanced Power Conservation, anyone? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ June 13, 2003, 20:23: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Phoenix-D

June 13th, 2003, 09:35 PM

Here's a few more..

On the sector list, warp points, storms, and other non-useable objects should go toward the bottom, planets on top, construction bases next then combat bases..in some games it gets annoying having to scroll past the warp points and 50 bases to get to your ships.

Also, constructed planets should be at the top of the list along with normal planets. As it is now they aren't!

Phoenix-D

June 13th, 2003, 09:35 PM

EDIT: more, since it double posted AND accidently got posted too soon..

Anyway- it would be nice if we could determine where ships go in formation.

[ June 13, 2003, 20:37: Message edited by: Phoenix-D ]

thorfrog

June 13th, 2003, 10:42 PM

Here is my top 5:
1. Captial Planet
2. Area effect weapons (explosions damage ships in neighboring sectors in tac combat
3. Race hate settings (Cylons hate Colonials)
4. More weapon types
5. Larger ship graphics

Narrew

June 13th, 2003, 10:55 PM

Originally posted by Atrocities:
6. And most importantly, everyone who buys the game loves it so much that they by a second copy just in case something should happen to their first copy.Bah, after I played the Demo, I bought 1 game for me and 3 more for my friends, but them Ba***rds have yet to get hooked http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

General Woundwort

June 14th, 2003, 12:01 AM

In the course of making the Highliner Mod, it has been pointed out that there are numerous components that, for one reason or another, won't work on Units. For many of them, there are good programming reasons (cargo, etc), but I think some should be reconsidered. Not the least of which - Boarding Party Components. Even in the non-modded game, the "large" Fighters are well within the size range of "boarding pods" as seen in some SciFi genres, and having them available would spice up tactical combat a bit. Just a thought.

narf poit chez BOOM

June 14th, 2003, 12:24 AM

it's been said here that this is the official suggestion box and aaron reads it.

[ June 13, 2003, 23:25: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

Hrothgar

June 14th, 2003, 12:44 AM

That is a poor solution. The game should not require modding in order to attain some semblance of balance. Exactly, Fyron! The effectiveness of Advanced Storage versus other racial traits seriously skews things. Sure, I could mod it myself, but any AI I made for the mod would be useless to anyone else.

I seriously hope that race traits are better balanced in SEV--and, in the same vein, I'd liked better balanced weapons too, so there's not just one or two useful paths to follow in weapons research.

Hrothgar

June 14th, 2003, 01:01 AM

I just thought of an idea for a new feature for SEV--don't know what anyone else might think of it:

Variable weapons ranges and damage from game to game. In other words, in SEIV we all know before a game starts exactly how far an APB IV will fire and what damage it will inflict, so we devise our research plans accordingly. In reality, the effectiveness of new weapons based on new technical developments isn't known until they're made and tested [think of the atomic bomb program in WWII]. Could each different type of weapon have a variable starting point, with a variable incremental improvement as each new level was attained? That way, in one game, Ionic Dispersers might rule, while in another, they might be only moderately effective. This could also be extended to shields, and maybe ECM, sensors, etc.

This way, every game would be like the first one, with the player not knowing what might be the best research path to pursue. I've always been in favor of being able to discover things as you go along--I think it makes a game more interesting.

Phoenix-D

June 14th, 2003, 01:47 AM

More, since I remembered more this time..ships should be able to be given launch orders even if they don't have anything in their cargo to launch. So you can order a ship to pick something up, move, and launch in the same turn. Also a # to launch menu would be nice.

On a similar note, it would be good if you could access the Retrofit menu even when selecting something that can't be retrofitted- like a warp point. So you don't have to scroll and select.

Atrocities

June 14th, 2003, 03:16 AM

I don't know about the rest of you, but I love to mod this game. I think it is one of the games strongest assests.

Sure some things need to be fixed, but hey name one game that doens't have something wrong with it.

Hrothgar

June 14th, 2003, 06:30 AM

Atrocities, I agree that the modding can be fun, and it's certainly one of the reasons the game's as popular as it is. But, there's one problem with mods--you can get to the point that no two players are playing the same game. This is of little significance if you only play solo--go ahead and change anything you want; you're modding the game to satisfy your own tastes, and that's all that matters. But, if you want to play against others, you obviously have to agree which Version you're going to play, and my guess is that the stock Version is always going to be the most commonly played. So, I want the stock Version to be as good as possible.

I say this despite the fact that I find some of the mods very interesting to play--like AST and Proportions. They both do some things better than the unmodded game. Haven't tried P&N yet, but it sounds good too. But, TDM's popularity--and I do have the impression that it's the most commonly played mod--lies, I think, in the fact that it doesn't change anything in the stock game, but simply reworks the AIs to provide more of a challenge. So, lessons learned in TDM are applicable to multiplayer unmodded games, while anything that you learn in a more extensive mod is likely to be applicable only to that mod.

June 14th, 2003, 08:03 AM

I agree with Atrocities. Without the possibility to mod I would have lost my interest in SE IV by now, no matter how good the standard game is. It is the modding that keeps my interest alive.
Therefore modding will be absolutely essential for my decision to buy SE V.
I might be wrong but if you count TDM, Proportion, Quadrant Mod together, the standard games might not be anymore the majority.

[ June 14, 2003, 07:04: Message edited by: Q ]

Hrothgar

June 14th, 2003, 11:10 PM

Fyron, that's a good idea. Damage IS too predictable in SEIV. However, I don't see why both variables couldn't be included; for example, in one game:

DUC V damage 40-60 40-60 40-60 40-60 40-60

But, in another game:

DUC V damage 30-50 30-50 30-50 30-50

Possible variations in damage and range for a given weapon from game to game should probably not be too extreme, but even if it's only a 10-30% variation in average damage and a 10-30% variation in range, that would probably be enough to change the relative effectiveness of different weapons from game to game, so that it could pay off to be more flexible in your research plan than is currently the case--given that now we all know from the get-go EXACTLY what we'll get out of each research project.

Perhaps either or both of the variables above could be optional choices when setting up the game. If you wanted to play without them, you just wouldn't check the box to activate them.

Fyron

June 14th, 2003, 11:25 PM

Your random damage suggestion should be a disableable option, yes. But my suggestion should not be. It makes no sense whatsoever to be able to do the exact same amount of damage with each of a half million shots (over time).

Hrothgar

June 14th, 2003, 11:38 PM

Also, I want to clarify something. I am not opposed to mods! I enjoy playing AST and Proportions [not to mention the TDM mod, which I play to the exclusion of unmodded SEIV. However, I consider TDM to be in a different class, because it does not mod any of the given parameters of the game, but simply reworks the AIs so that they exploit the standard game mechanics more effectively], and I intend to try P&N as soon as I can. However, the problem which I was addressing with the Advanced Storage trait seems to me to be a fundamental game balance issue, which ought to be fixed in the standard game, not simply in a mod which will benefit only a fraction of SEIV players.

My only problem with mods is that an excessive number of mods makes comparison/competition/communication between players problematic. But, I'm not looking for SE5 to be any less "moddable" than SEIV. I just want fundamental problems handled in the standard game so that we don't have to make a mod simply to fix what seems to me to be an obvious flaw. I realize that what constitutes an "obvious flaw," as opposed to simply a matter of preference, depends somewhat on personal perception. But, that's why I raised the issue of Advanced Storage here, to see if I was the only one who disliked being forced to use Advanced Storage if you want to design an effective AI empire.

And, Fyron, that'd be fine with me.

Fyron

June 15th, 2003, 01:12 AM

I just thought of an idea for a new feature for SEV--don't know what anyone else might think of it:
I would prefer having damage at each range be variable. I posted about this a long time ago in this thread (or maybe it was one of the other dozen SEV suggestion threads...). I'll dig up the post...

And here is that post:
In SE5, all damage should be random. There should be no static damage. Each damage at range value for a weapon should have a range of damage it can do, instead of a set damage. Here is an example of what I mean (not necessarily with actual SE4 values):

DUC V in SE4
Damage at range := 50 50 50 50 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

DUC V in SE5
Damage at range := 40-60 40-60 40-60 40-60 40-60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

So, at each range, instead of doing 50 damage with each shot, each shot will do somewhere between 40 and 60 damage. The range of values could be higher or lower; these are just arbitrary examples.

Randomness in damage values is much more realistic than the weapon always doing the same damage. Also, it is more unpredicatable, and reduces the certainty of victory that can be felt in SE4 as it is. If I have weapons that always do more damage than yours, I will most likely win (all else being equal). But if damage is fairly random, this certainty is removed, except with huge differences in tech levels. Atrocities:
I shall allow my sig to speak for itself on that whole "I don't know about you but I like modding SE4" bit. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Q:
There is no chance that SE5 will not be moddable. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ June 14, 2003, 12:17: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Stone Mill

June 17th, 2003, 09:23 PM

Customizable and Printable reports!

SEV should have a reporting feature with canned reports, customizable reports, and Ad-Hoc reports. I love data as well.

The icons on the SEIV GUI are essentially reports, and they do have a degree of customization (selecting different buttons while in a view).

It would be nice to have a customizable view to produce empire management reports. Also, there should be a printable report functionality (ability to export to .txt or .xls).

Rojero

June 17th, 2003, 09:36 PM

Ihope that weapons especially are useful in the new Version. That would not need a proportions mod. ALso I would like fighter based races to have some kind of equal based chance of winnning. I get my butt handed to me all the time http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Ed Kolis

June 17th, 2003, 09:59 PM

"Weapons especially are useful"? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif What do you mean by that? Aren't weapons always useful for making things go boom? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Did you put some specific kind of weapon in angle brackets, that would cause it to disappear...

Rojero

June 18th, 2003, 03:23 AM

Point noted! LOL
I meant that weapons like torpedoes should be a little more powerful to justify the negative factors as opposed to a beam weapon that does relatively the same factor of damage. Does that sound a bit more better?

jimbob

June 18th, 2003, 06:47 AM

Hey, just out of curiosity, does anyone have a resonably accurate guess/timeline for the production and subsequent release of SEV??

Fyron

June 18th, 2003, 07:08 AM

Supposedly next summer, but I don't know if it will really be ready by then. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Me Loonn

June 18th, 2003, 07:00 PM

Just another idea, dunno if its posted anywhere already, but ...

Using TAB pages like when clickin planet(detail/facil/cargo/ability) on SECTORS too, when sector has more than one planet or whatnot:
(planets/ships/bases/misc)
This would filter "useless"
warppoints, minefields, storms, asteroid fields etc to misc tab.
Putting fleets, ships, units in another, bases in one and planets in one, things wouldnt be so 'messy' no more http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Ragnarok

June 18th, 2003, 10:48 PM

I don't know if this has been suggested before but it will be now. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I just don't know if it'd be possible to do in SEV. But I was thinking of something along the lines of Stargate SG-1.

This would be a facility that can either be researched (at a very, very high cost) or could be set to be only found in ruins, or it could only be made available on your home world that would allow one to use a "use facility" button. Having this facility would make it possible for you to build troops on a planet and then use the Stargate to open a portal to an enemy planet with a similar stargate. This would add another area to the game that would need to be watched carefully to insure that you do not lose that planet. But like I said, I don't even know if it's possible. What does everyone think about it? Good or bad idea? Any way to make this work better then what I described?

[ June 18, 2003, 21:52: Message edited by: Ragnarok ]

minipol

June 19th, 2003, 12:40 AM

Ragnarok, that would be like an invisible maze of nodes linked to planets that only reveal themselves after you searched the ruin or facility. I like the idea. Would add to the importance of troops.

narf poit chez BOOM

June 19th, 2003, 08:24 AM

stargate's would make it to complex.

i think ship sizes should be up to the player.

[ June 19, 2003, 07:26: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

Fyron

June 19th, 2003, 09:09 AM

Stargates as an option would be a good idea, but certainly not as the standard game affair.

Growltigger

June 19th, 2003, 09:59 AM

I have said this before but just in case Aaron is reading this, I will say it again.

I want COMMUNICATION LAG a la the Starfire model. What this means is that Messages from your planets/ships need to get to homeworld before you can issue orders, rather than being omnicogniscent at all times.

The Starfire model works as follows. Say that one of your scoutships meets an alien race. It needs to get a message back to your homeworld. How does it do this?

At very low tech, it pretty much has to fly back to your home system. At a slightly higher tech, you get courier drones (fast long range missiles)which can be fired off to pass Messages along. Planetary populations have communication devices and these can be used to pass along Messages at light speed. Warp points are a problem, as no light speed Messages can go through so you have to build bases at them to fire drones through. It makes you communication network pretty damn important I can tell you.

Turning back to our example, if the alien race is hostile, the scoutship has to get the message back to homeworld (or your nearest command and control sector) so that orders can be evalueated and sent out to units. This means that you cannot react to that alien race until your ships have received orders from homeworld.

Apologies for the above, a bit rambling I know but I just love the realism of this. For example, 3 systems out, one of my scoutships bumps into an alien armada, one of my fleets is 2 systems away and could intercept if they got orders in time, it takes say 3 days for the message for get back home, 2 days to get a message to the fleet and 3 days for them to get to intercept range - in that 8 day period, the alien fleet would be a damn sight closer or even nuking my homeworld...

Now, in SEIV terms, any time under a turn is not important, BUT I wonder if it could be modded so that you need to develop communications technology to have the "instant" communications network, and until you do, you cannot find out anything until your scoutship returns to a planet...

Does this make sense to anyone?

DavidG

June 19th, 2003, 12:35 PM

Originally posted by Captain Jean Luc Le Grand Chat:

Apologies for the above, a bit rambling I know but I just love the realism of this. For example, 3 systems out, one of my scoutships bumps into an alien armada, one of my fleets is 2 systems away and could intercept if they got orders in time, it takes say 3 days for the message for get back home, 2 days to get a message to the fleet and 3 days for them to get to intercept range - in that 8 day period, the alien fleet would be a damn sight closer or even nuking my homeworld...

Now, in SEIV terms, any time under a turn is not important, BUT I wonder if it could be modded so that you need to develop communications technology to have the "instant" communications network, and until you do, you cannot find out anything until your scoutship returns to a planet...

Does this make sense to anyone?Well not really. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif It sounds needlessly complicated to me. I mean if the fleet in your example is 2 systems away should it really need to wait untill a message from the scout got all the way back to the homeworld and back before reacting? I think I like the SE4 universe with instantaneous communication.

minipol

June 19th, 2003, 09:43 PM

I read chapter 2 in the Trillian Empire thread and it gave me an idea. If this was already posted, shoot me http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

=================== snip ===================
Reading chapter 2, it made me realise what i sometimes miss in SEIV what some other games do have: leaders! Adds to the roleplaying character of the game. Some games give you great leaders at random times with abilities that influence troops. In SEIV, that could mean that some leaders influence ground combat of the troops they lead, others fighters or fleets!
Maybe boost intelligence or research.

Dang, reminds me of, eh, what's it called * stands up, walks to box with old goodies * Hah, Starwars Rebellion.

Image that for a race (say Federation), you could suddenly end up with Jean-Luc Piccard http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
Would be fun. Then for modding you could make a number of leaders that would appear at a certain time or randomly.
================== snip =================

[ June 19, 2003, 20:45: Message edited by: minipol ]

Growltigger

June 20th, 2003, 01:05 AM

Originally posted by DavidG:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Well not really. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif It sounds needlessly complicated to me. I mean if the fleet in your example is 2 systems away should it really need to wait untill a message from the scout got all the way back to the homeworld and back before reacting? I think I like the SE4 universe with instantaneous communication.[/QB]<hr /></blockquote>Aha, but that is one of the points this methodlogy deals with in Starfire. How does your fleet now that it should move to intercept the alien scourge. It doesn't, unless it gets orders from your nearest command and control centre telling it to go and whup alien butt.

You specify standing orders for your scoutships, and if those orders say that they have authority to hijack fleets, then your scoutship could send a message to the fleet to interdict, provided it new they were there. If, when the scout left homeworld, that fleet was happily in orbit on R&R, how would it know to send a message to the other system (where that fleet was) to get them to assist?

Of course, a proper Starfire game needs a referee (a Space Umpire) who ensures that this rule is enforced

I suppose an analogy would be Pacific WWII carrier battles with no radio. You have a load of dauntlesses and devastators prepped and ready to whup those Japanese, but until your catalina tells you where they are, you cant do anything, and if that catalina has to fly back to you to tell you where they are, or send a carrier pigeon!! nuff said?

Personally, given that SEIV is on the galactic level, I think instantaneous communication is a bit much, maybe only at a high tech level or something

jimbob

June 20th, 2003, 01:06 AM

Ragnok: Brilliant! I have so wanted to have StarGates too. The possibility of sending troops and fighters (really anything small and reassemble-able) would absolutely increase their value.

Ragnarok, that would be like an invisible maze of nodes linked to planets that only reveal themselves after you searched the ruin or facility. I like the idea. Would add to the importance of troops.It would be nice if each planet had a "phone number" a la the TV show. The number would be equivalent to the planet's location in space (i.e. you couldn't change it) and would become known to whomever builds the star gate or holds the planet... You should be able to send the phone number to allies and enemies should be able to obtain it via espionage. Finally, it should function as a Space Port as long as the empire in question has a StarGate in contact with one of their planets that is in a Space Ported system.

The only way to protect from enemy troops would be to disassemble the device - in SEiv that would be equivalent to destroying the facility I guess.

minipol

June 20th, 2003, 01:25 AM

I think it's a complicated idea too but it would make things far more realistic. I'm not sure if it would make things more fun.

But what with fleets at the other end of the map? That would be unworkable unless they arrived there through a warppoint from your own system (that you opened with a warp opener for instance)

In such a case, you should be able to set a command for the fleet like: go there, attack this, stay there for x number of time or until mission x is accomplished and then come back.
But this would be very complex si i don't think it's doable in such a manner that it increases the gaming experience but that's just my opinion.

Loser

June 20th, 2003, 01:40 AM

I wish the AI could tell the difference between sectors. I wish it could mine sectors other than Warp Points, choose to stand and wait for a fight in sectors with bonuses or penalties, not send small ships through Warp Points they will not survive, and not blow up systems without first removing its highly mobile and easy-to-remove investments.

deccan

June 20th, 2003, 02:06 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Supposedly next summer, but I don't know if it will really be ready by then. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Gosh, I guess I must try to finish my SP Propoertions game before then.

narf poit chez BOOM

June 20th, 2003, 04:14 AM

ack! definitly optional on the stargates. having to keep track of two major tactical maps...

Loser

June 20th, 2003, 02:52 PM

I was trying to code my own Civ-style game a while back (pretty simple, really), and my approach to the 'Leader' issue was to have the game periodically generate Exceptional Individuals.

They were to carry bonuses and penalties and occasionally special abilities. They could be assigned to any unit, could add their bonuses to a whole stack if that unit had a HQ component (units were to have components like SMAC), and several of them could be assigned to a city.

The idea was that at certain populations, new slots for Exceptional Individuals would open up. Any city could have a Governor, but only one with 10 people could have a Lieutenant Governor. Two Lieutenant Governors at 20, three at thirty, and so on.

Also, as they performed jobs (Urban Garrison, Frontier Garrison, Land Development, City Management, Assault, Defense, whatever) an Exceptional Individual had a chance at improving his abilities in that job and a smaller chance at randomly picking up other bonuses.

Exceptional Individuals would also have varying level of potential. Some would never go too far, some would be Destined for Greatness.

In this way an exceptional Individual with strong Policing ability (keeps the populace from acting up) could be assigned to a City Garrison unit in a major Metropolis. He might then spontaneously develop a bonus to Research, and at that point the player would do well to move him from the unit to which he is assigned to a Lieutenant Governor position, where that Research Bonus will actually have some effect.

In this example of a Research bonus, it would be in the players best interest to move Exceptional Individuals with similar bonuses to cities already strong in that area. This would add to the specialization of cities (University town), and give a new incentive to adding population to a city.

One great risk with Exceptional Individuals would be that if you left them alone too long on patrol, or left them in charge of a city too far from your capitol, with overly cooperative Lieutenants, they might leave you. When an Exceptional Individual leave a player's employ it can either immediately join another faction (more SMAC influence here), or it can start its own. When an Exceptional Individual starts its own faction, its faction bonuses and penalties would be determined by that individual, and that individual would be the new head of that faction. Whole faction had the ability to join other factions, their leaders returning to the sate of an Exceptional Individual in employment.

Anyway, change cities to worlds, units to ships and bases, and maybe units, and you have something that would fit into SE V. But I hear that Generals in Medieval Total War work about that way, and you can marry your daughters to them, to boot.

Of course, I'd bet that the feature set for SE V is pretty much finalized, but this was a fun post to write.

On the other hand, can you imagine having a high-potential Exceptional Individual whose bonuses lie in Fighter Combat.... doom, doom, doom...

[edit: by "pretty simple really" I mean that I didn't get very far at all, not on the coding anyway]

[ June 20, 2003, 13:53: Message edited by: Loser ]

General Woundwort

June 23rd, 2003, 12:23 PM

From Taera's "Crazy Mod Idea" thread...

Have "Only One Installation per Planet" be available for any/all facilites besides Ship Yards.

clark

June 23rd, 2003, 05:17 PM

I haven't seen this, so please disregard if it has been suggested before:

Genetic ConVersion.

We can convert the atmosphere of a planet to suit the needs of the population, but we are unable to convert the population to the requirements of the planet.

Perhaps make the whole "biology" medical tech tree a little more useful in terms of manipulating the population to meet game needs.

Loser

June 23rd, 2003, 05:44 PM

Is there a place for User Interface specific requests and suggestions? I have a few: Tab and Arrow Key interface navigation. I am a keyboard kind of guy, and the ability to hot-key around makes me so happy.
 Cursor Mode. With a hot-key, set the interface to Cursor Mode, so that the Arrow Keys move a cursor (independent of the mouse, if possible but not necessary) around the System or Combat Map.
 Forgiving Tactical Combat. I know the strength of the game isn't so much in Tactical Combat, but it would be nice to have an Undo, or maybe to have movement orders executed when you hit End Turn More hot-keys. If I could use the whole game without ever touching the mouse I would... well... I'm going to buy it and tell all my friends how great it is anyway... well I'd just be darn pleased.
 Moddable interface. Allow the modder to specify the commands executed or windows opened by key-strokes or mouse buttons. Give the modder a way to specify CTRL, ALT, and SHIFT modifiers to keystrokes, all five possible mouse buttons and the wheel.Yeah... so... while I'm still pretty sure the specifics of SE V are already set, this is some stuff I'd sure like to see.

dumbluck

June 23rd, 2003, 06:45 PM

I don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but I'd really like to see the Diplomatic engine have much more granularity.

For example, if I want to have a trade agreement with empire A, but not allow his ships to pass me without combat being initiated, let me. If I want to be able to share resupply depots with empire B, but not have trade relations with them, let me. If I want to trade research with empire C, but not trade resources, let me.

And there is one Last thing that needs to be added to the diplomatic repertoire: the ability to be repaired by an allies SY/Repair Bays.

Me Loonn

June 26th, 2003, 05:25 PM

Well, one thing just came to me:
Queues listing needs more sorting choises, now it sorts them by alphabetic, fac number, etc from highest value on top only. Need to get also sorted by lowest value on top, if you click on it second time.
Very simple thing to add, i imagine http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Stone Mill

June 26th, 2003, 06:12 PM

The planetary indicator that is currently used for population should be more meaningful- represent more exact population levels. Perhaps introduce a color code system so the bars truly signify different levels.

Chronon

June 26th, 2003, 11:02 PM

Originally posted by Stone Mill:
The planetary indicator that is currently used for population should be more meaningful- represent more exact population levels. Perhaps introduce a color code system so the bars truly signify different levels.Excellent idea, Stone Mill. Or, it could be a number inside the "flag" like it is in Civ III. Which gives me another idea...Why not have an option to show on the system window what each planet is working on (like Civ3 and SMAC)?

Here's my top five things I'd like to see:

1) Money - Managing the Imperial budget would add a nice layer of decision-making at the strategic level. Production would cost resources, money, and manpower (workers). Intelligence would also cost money (bribes), as would ship maintenance, repair, and retrofitting.

2) More resources - Or at least a better balance of the three now in use.

3) Retreat from tactical combat (ala MoO3). In simultaneous/strategic combat, a pop-up window with choices about retreat (10% losses, 20% losses, etc). Or perhaps this could be on a morale system. When your fleets "break" they retreat. Extra bonuses for experienced crews, of course.

4) Individual Leaders/Ministers with specific bonuses (plus or minus) - They add a fun rpg element to the game. Also, I would like to see them modable(especially the population minister!), so that I could configure them to my playing style.

5) A dynamic system display with orbits for each planet and planets that move along those orbits each turn (3D would be icing on the cake).

Stone Mill

June 27th, 2003, 02:11 AM

Thanks, Chronon. Now, your ideas would really be cool. There's much that can be leveraged in this area.

Erax

June 27th, 2003, 12:44 PM

Picking up on Chronon's ideas :

1) Moddable resources - let's have, say, 99 resource 'slots'. the standard game uses 3 of them, but you can use the others in your mods. This would allow us, for example, to link production of engines to an 'engine factory' facility by creating a 'propulsion hardware' resource.

2) Allow facilities to consume resources. This would allow us to build up a 'production chain' type of infrastructure, with mines that produce ore, then smelters that convert it into metal, then various types of factories that make different components.

3) Allow different kinds of supplies on ships. Beam weapons and engines would use energy (similar to supplies as they are now), but CSMs and DUCs would use ammunition - another kind of supply. Life support would convert energy into food and atmosphere (a third kind of supply).

TerranC

June 27th, 2003, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by Loser:
More hot-keys. If I could use the whole game without ever touching the mouse I would... well... I'm going to buy it and tell all my friends how great it is anyway... well I'd just be darn pleased.That'd be cool. Adding on Loser's suggestion, Changeble/Moddable Hot-keys, and a system that tells you if your custom hot keys conflict with any original hot key (Like in Freespace 2).

[ June 27, 2003, 11:51: Message edited by: TerranC ]

Chronon

June 27th, 2003, 06:13 PM

Thanks Stone Mill and Chief Erax. With all the good stuff in this thread, Aaron will have a really tough time putting it all in the game. Even so, I'm sure the finished product will be a lot of fun - I'm really looking forward to it.

Me Loonn

June 27th, 2003, 06:14 PM

Originally posted by Chief Engineer Erax:
1) Moddable resources - let's have, say, 99 resource 'slots'.Hehe...
Why not just aswell use Startrek type element system: 256(?) different "elements".

Or more 'realistic' where most common ones are hydrogen, helium, etc and 91 total naturally found elements. Some could be manufactured after some research while others (after mined)would open new paths in reasearch.

Wouldnt it be great that you have found, mined, refined and researched the use for, say, quantum 40 or tri-lithium and your worst enemy hasnt (yet) ? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

-edit-
Speaking of mining, i REALLY wish you couldnt mine ring/sphereworlds.. does it make sense that after BUILDING them, you can mine them forever ?

[ June 27, 2003, 17:21: Message edited by: Me Loonn ]

Loser

June 27th, 2003, 06:19 PM

Well, you could do that in a mod if you want to. What's being suggested, though, is a more flexable system of resources. The standard game could keep the Standard three, but modders could change them to whatever they wanted of however many they needed.

minipol

June 29th, 2003, 07:48 PM

A sort of search and replace for queues.
For instance, when you are building a lot of fighters of a certain type and you just researched some improvements, you have to go check all your planet queues, orbital space yard queues and so on to change the old type to the new type.
With a search and replace you could change the old type into to new type in all build queues. This would save MANY clicks and micro management. This is the area where SEIV suffers in big games. Planet managements becomes hell. With this replace you could manage all queues from 1 screen.

Me Loonn

July 1st, 2003, 07:48 AM

And MORE research, the tech tree is too "small", in large quadrant you can realively easilly research all there is by turn 150 or even sooner, reasearch if set expensive, adds 50 turns or so more.

Wish that there would be atleast some choises "this or that, but not both" instead of current all for all (racial tech not included). Also more unique tech from ruins, something like 100 or so different gadjets no one else could get, unless both get same by random.

Current tech tree is quite nice, but I was thinking something to slow research speed alittle. Something like prototype needed to build before next level can be researched. Say you have research theoretical basis for atom bomb. As it was in real life, they needed (or atleast, wanted) to test it before it could been used as a weapon.
So if DUC I is developed theoratically, practical reasearch (or engeneering research, what ever the name) is needed next witch is followed by actual prototype build. Then after "testing" DUC I can new improvements researched (DUC II). And so on.
Any one like this idea ?

-edit-
Oh and just incase someone else already posted similar idea, sorry.
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

[ July 01, 2003, 06:55: Message edited by: Me Loonn ]

Me Loonn

July 1st, 2003, 08:29 AM

Yet more about research...
Could there be added a way to recuse the size taken by components as well as their construction and maintenance costs. Say like each level of "miniaturation" costing twice the cost of former level , having cumulative effect to reduse costs and size by 10% per level (not (-10-10-...), but (.9 * .9 * ...).
So if one would reseach 10 levels of "DUC I minituration", the end would allow build DUC I at ~35% of cost and size of the original. But the cost would be insane, level 10 would cost 512 times the first level http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif
Also, the actual research for DUC I would have different base cost to miniturize, or it would be pointless to miniturize anything.

Slick

July 1st, 2003, 08:36 AM

Originally posted by Me Loonn:
Yet more about research...
Could there be added a way to recuse the size taken by components as well as their construction and maintenance costs. Say like each level of "miniaturation" costing twice the cost of former level , having cumulative effect to reduse costs and size by 10% per level (not (-10-10-...), but (.9 * .9 * ...).
So if one would reseach 10 levels of "DUC I minituration", the end would allow build DUC I at ~35% of cost and size of the original. But the cost would be insane, level 10 would cost 512 times the first level http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif
Also, the actual research for DUC I would have different base cost to miniturize, or it would be pointless to miniturize anything.This can be done in SE4 with mounts. Modded mounts, of course. There are some mount mods that do just this sort of thing. Check out Deathstalker's Mount Mod. (For mounts coming out the wazoo! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif )

Slick.

[ July 01, 2003, 07:38: Message edited by: Slick ]

Me Loonn

July 1st, 2003, 08:39 AM

But mounts dont have research cost, do they ?

The idea for this is to let player to "waste" RPs on paths that allow better Versions of old components.

-edit-
Oh, tech req is optional for mounts..
Nevermind http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Now all we need is filter that hides "absolite mounts"

-edit-edit-
Or add another optional mount req.
Like, Req Tech lvl only :=2 that only works on lvl 2 and no other lvl (1,3,4..)
Or then, lists for use, like "Must have to use" and "Cannot have to use", Must have lvl 2, Cannot have lvl 3...

[ July 01, 2003, 07:54: Message edited by: Me Loonn ]

Me Loonn

July 1st, 2003, 09:42 AM

Emergency Propulsion Pods, Emergency Resupply Pods and the like, should be allowed to be used by whole fleet with one click, same as single ship. Game would then automatically check all ships for such component and use it.
Currently you can use ages on removing ships from your fleet of 200+ ships carrying such component, using them and then re-adding them to the fleet.

Please, think of us who would play MOO3 due its micromanagement handed over the AI, if its AI wasn't braindead and totally clueless agains player.
There is no such thing as too little micromanagement, only too much.

Me Loonn

July 1st, 2003, 10:31 AM

Space Yard and Repair Bay components.

They should repair stationary uncloaked ships only. If one wants to repair ships with damaged components, all, damaged and repair ships must stay within same sector for atleast 1 full turn, not moving at all. And not cloaked, Same as construction on space yard ships.
One could imagine that junk from a fleet getting repair flying everywhere would show on atleast SOME scanners, making cloaking pointless in the first place http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ July 01, 2003, 09:33: Message edited by: Me Loonn ]

tesco samoa

July 1st, 2003, 03:55 PM

These three are combined.

1. If their are ruins...

The ability to select which research is not available to be found ( and if needed what level )

2. The ability to select which research cannot be traded
3. the ability to select which components cannot be analyzed.

This would really clear up SEIV... I hope it is considered for SEV.

trooper

July 1st, 2003, 04:31 PM

Is there any feedback about what is put in this thread ? It seems far too big to be entirely read by Aaron ...

Stone Mill

July 1st, 2003, 04:53 PM

Hmmm. I've been wondering the same thing , Troop.

In any case, this thread is an intellectual gamer's goldmine!!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif It would be disappointing if it were not given any attention.

But alas, there must be a structured process behind any efforts for change implementation.

Suicide Junkie

July 1st, 2003, 05:28 PM

Originally posted by Me Loonn:
Wish that there would be atleast some choises "this or that, but not both" instead of current all for all (racial tech not included). I never did understand how that sort of thing would make any sort of sense.

Eg:
If the russians develop tech A, they can't research tech B, even though the Americans decided to ignore tech A and sucessfully developed tech B instead.
If the americans did it, why can't the russians do it too if they really want to?

Everything else you mentioned in that particular post can be modded in.
- There are programs to extend the tech areas
- You can easily make single level chains of techs. "Projectile Weapons I" which allows "Practical DUC I" which allows "Projectile Weapons II" which allows ... etc
A more popular way is grid techs, where two or more tech areas provide upgrades to the same component. Perhaps a theoretical area for increasing the potential damage, a practical area for actually getting that potential realized, and a manufacturing area for getting the costs down. Perhaps even a training tech area for giving the weapon a built-in accuracy bonus.
- more ruins is physically easy, coming up with ideas for what to put in them is the hard part.

LGM

July 1st, 2003, 07:34 PM

Aaron,

I would like to see something done to prevent the Talisman from being overpowering. Then after that do something to diminish the might of Organic races. Currently in my opinion Organic and Religous races rule. In a small ship limit game, Religious races unstopable.

Suggestions: The Talisman only works for the first volley of shots as a battle blessing. Another suggestion is make it act as 10KT armor so that one shot takes it out. There has to be some counter to the thing because there is no effective way of beating a Religious race with a comparable economy.

Organic races can really crank out the ships. Maybe Organic planets should be more rare so that they have to work harder to develop that resource to build Organic ships.

Units should pay maintenance.

Faciltiies should pay mainteance.

Queues should start the next item with left over capacity.

Repeat building of the same design at a planet should lower production costs by 20%. (Retooling factories is a big cost).

Trade should not create resources. It is absurd that a one planet empire can receive 20% of a huge empire and store those resources and gift them right back. Poof, instance resources out of thin air. All resource trading should be done through diplomacy.

Make cloaking more sophisticated. One cloak factor per one square of distance. Cloaks would in effect hide ships until they get closer by adding the the visual range. Longer range sensors would become an important aspsect in the game.

Allow Point Defenses to clear mines, but less effectively than mine sweapers. Minesweapers should sweap a number of KTs of mine units, not a number of mines. This will make large mines harder to sweap.

Consider randomizing how many unsweapt mines detonate on the entering fleet. The remainder stay there. Greatly reduce the sweaping power if you do this so that fleets can stay and sweap again next turn or move on leaving some mines behind. It would be nice if there could some element of chosing in the game between staying in a minefield to clear it or to move through it, leaving part of it behind. Minefields should be a delaying factor, not an all or nothing wall.

Add engine damaging mine warheads.

Fyron

July 1st, 2003, 07:40 PM

Another option is to have a weapon that does Talisman-only damage. A Desecrator or somesuch.

Phoenix-D

July 1st, 2003, 09:22 PM

"Organic races can really crank out the ships. Maybe Organic planets should be more rare so that they have to work harder to develop that resource to build Organic ships."

Umm..the organic stuff is generally weaker than normal components. You're suggesting taking away about the only significant advantage this 1500 point trait HAS. (aside from the facilities, but alone they aren't worth 1500 points)

Tnarg

July 2nd, 2003, 04:01 AM

This game is one of the greatest with out a doubt; however, there is one area that the game seems to lack in. Unique civilization or empire depth beyond extremely diverse military technical aspects. It seems that every game that I am in or have played, military technological advancement is the key to survivial and enjoyment. Everybody wants to plunder the next Joe without taking the time to enjoy what they have actually accomplished as far as a unique empire.

This is true with many of the great 4X games like Civilization II and MOOII. One needs to have the sharper edge to expand or flourish; however, these games also incorporated a rich cultural aspect investigating philosophy, the sciences, cultural enriching advancements, and social endeavors such as diplomacy and governments. True SEIV offers all of the above, but it seems rather two dimensional. Example: Population on planet A IV is unhappy so one researches a technology to get a facility to make them happy, and boom that's it; one never really has to worry about it again, whereas in CIVII or MOOII that was something that constantly needed to be checked and kept in check. And there are so many reasons why populations would get unhappy.

Instead of everyone building the biggest and baddest fleet around, why couldn't another race take a different approach and build great and majaestic planets full of unique facilities and or "wonders" type advancements.

In a strategic stand point the home planet is the goal of many empires, all the other planets are just gained territory and a few facilities to help the war and research effort. In CivII, one had goals to find out the city that created something you worked so hard for but lost in a race, fuelling the seed to go after that city and plunder their gain for you own.

In MOOII one sought goals of obtaining that planet with the bonus for money or food, and then refined that planet as a sole economic or agricultural planet that if lost would put an empire in ruin.

In CivIII the introduction of culture added a new curse factor as one had to stay ahead of the competitor for culture advancements and growth. Failure to do so would result in the outlaying cities revolting and joining the empire of better opportunity.

Again in CivII and III one had to maintain research in various fields to help them exploit resources. Resources that could help mold an Empire and open up doors for trade negotiations and advance an empire that had possession of key resources.

I don't know, it just seems that there was a bit more to fight over and lust for in the above mentioned classics rather than just uber fleets and players with the most advanced PPB technology. Truth be said the only reason that I am enjoying a few of my games is because of role played races in PBW. I have read some saddening forums where players are only playing to gain the prestige of winning rather than the enjoyment of what the next turn offers.

Let me end by saying that hands down SEIV adds a layer of miltary strategic and technological depth that the above mentioned lack greatly in. It is also one game out of many that will always keep my attention and respect.

Me Loonn

July 2nd, 2003, 06:29 AM

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:

Eg:
If the russians develop tech A, they can't research tech B, even though the Americans decided to ignore tech A and sucessfully developed tech B instead.
If the americans did it, why can't the russians do it too if they really want to?Well, one could think it as simple as railway track width, that differs in some countiers, or as bolts and screws that are either inch or mm based.
After making desision to use one, changing to other would require massive scrappin of old and replasing all those former bolts and screws that have now become "absolite".

Wasnt that similar thing in the Stak Trek DS9 station, with 3 or 4 different races tech used in it, making things blow up or just malfunction practically 24/7 ?

I know this sounds rather clumsy exsample, but in practical use of different techs, all kinds of problems emerge (PC, anyone... ?)

[ July 02, 2003, 05:32: Message edited by: Me Loonn ]

Suicide Junkie

July 2nd, 2003, 07:43 AM

After making desision to use one, changing to other would require massive scrappin of old and replasing all those former bolts and screws that have now become "absolite".You mean "obsolete", I'm sure.
That's a fair start, but the imperial to metric conVersion will only take a generation or three if you try.
Probably the closest Space Empires analog to the railway idea would be Standard extractors to monoliths... you have to scrap the old and build the new from scratch... at worst, an entire planet at a time.
You'd have to lay down new track across your country/province/state, then get new trains, and tear up the old tracks, redesign the stations perhaps, but if the economic incentive was there, or if I became dictator for life of the country, it could happen http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif .

Major changes would be rough going at first, but if you want it, you could still do it.

---Extended response stuff moved to new thread (http://www.shrapnelgames.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=009455)---

Me Loonn

July 2nd, 2003, 08:29 AM

Well, yeah.
Thats sort of similar what i had in mind if one _could_ (with massive costs) to get all techs but more one has the more research is needed (but in PvP game, this would be most likely a suicide choise http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif )

Witch brings, yet again, the need (or WANT)for "NOT" option for in req tech.

Oh, the possibilites with such feature ...
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
-edit-
Oh, and what i mean by massive costs..

The point for it is to prevent ANYONE getting more than a small fraction of all techs in one games time, unless if one invaded WHOLE large dense quadrant using FQM, converted athmospheres of ALL planets, filled them with research facilities... you get my point, right ? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

How to do this ?
well for example, there could be added a cumulative penalty based on number of total tech levels, something like 10% added research cost per each gained level. With 10% penalty per level means that after 500 tech levels costs for all remaining techs have risen to 50 times what they were when you didnt have any tech at all.

[ July 02, 2003, 08:51: Message edited by: Me Loonn ]

narf poit chez BOOM

July 2nd, 2003, 09:45 AM

simply make all talisman weapons use double or triple the supply.

Atrocities

July 2nd, 2003, 09:48 AM

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
simply make all talisman weapons use double or triple the supply.- Here I have done it for you. -

Name := Religious Talisman
Description := Centers the spirituality of the vehicle and focuses it towards its goal.
Pic Num := 166
Tonnage Space Taken := 50
Tonnage Structure := 50
Cost Minerals := 300
Cost Organics := 300
Cost Radioactives := 300
Vehicle Type := Ship\Base\Sat\WeapPlat\Drone
Supply Amount Used := 100
Restrictions := None
General Group := Religious
Family := 6001
Roman Numeral := 0
Custom Group := 0
Number of Tech Req := 1
Tech Area Req 1 := Religious Technology
Tech Level Req 1 := 4
Number of Abilities := 1
Ability 1 Type := Weapons Always Hit
Ability 1 Descr := Direct-fire weapons fired from this vehicle will always hit their target.
Ability 1 Val 1 := 0
Ability 1 Val 2 := 0
Weapon Type := None

[ July 02, 2003, 08:52: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

Atrocities

July 2nd, 2003, 11:15 AM

LONG POST!

All of the suggestions, ideas, and such below are from this "offical" thread created by David "The Avatar King' Gervais. I tried to list them as they were posted, and some suggestion my be copies of others. You guys did not make this task easy with 33 pages of Posts to mill through, so please keep in mind that duplications are likely. I managed to get through about 6 pages and have over 200 items. I stopped at the Top post on Page 27 (currently raynfala post posted February 14, 2003 19:22)

I did this because I think a comprehensive list was needed. There are many many more suggestions out there that did not make it into this list. Some of them are contained at the links below.

Old Thread - Pole Thread (http://www.shrapnelgames.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=006202;p=6)
Old Thread - Old Ideas Thread (http://www.shrapnelgames.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=007348;p=5)

=============================
THE LIST
=============================

01. My biggest wish is that whatever new and cool ideas Aaron adds to SE5, the game still have a simultaneous turn, PBEM play option that is compatible with PBW.
02. When viewing a system show what ships and colonies are in the system the Last time the player could see it
03. Fix bugs and add more control to ship/fleet orders (ie allow player to specify what max range is)
04. Satellites spread all around planet
05. Fix bugs in comm. System (ie gifts accepted but not received)
06. In simultaneous game show some detail on ground combat results (such as shown in single player game)
07. Components with intel and research abilities
08. Ability to edit Messages after they are sent
09. Easier to use map editor (ie ability to drag and drop planets and systems around)
10. Additional warp points types. (ie Temporary would be good for simulating warp/hyper drives. Create warp point, go through and next turn it collapses)
11. Allow human to set anger level towards other human (and possibly prevent treaties from being broken when anger level is low ie 'bortherly)
12. Mines that do not hit 100% of the time.
13. Make Intel/Counter intel more sophisticated instead of just X no. of counter intel defeats X number of intel.
14. Save kT destroyed for individual ships instead of just class
15. When AI agrees to do something (ie declare war) make them do it
16. Show the damage to ships in combat replay for simultaneous game
17. Facility that adds facility space to a planet
18. Starting technology levels for each race individually in the game setup
19. Race specific anger modification in the AI anger.txt file
20. Ability to save default game settings for subsequent single-player games
21. Get restricted racial traits working
22. More mount options (ie to change rate of fire or Armour mount)
23. User interface enhancements (ie mouse wheel support)
24. Add more resource types. (ie certain components could require exotic materials to build)
25. Facility to increase max population
26. One of the things that I (and several other people) wanted was open-ended research. instead of progressing according to statically defined components, each component would include a formula for improvement. maybe linear, maybe parabolic with deminishing returns. this would make component families easer to create and mod, and would provide truely 'limitless' gameplay without starting a new game. arm's races could Last thousands of years. in theory.
27. Another biggie, is vector based movement. thrust and velocity would be nice to have. but even without thrust and velocity, get us off the grid!
28. For the candy factor, truely modled starsystems were frequently requested. planets that orbit. maybe outer planets orbiting slower than inner planets. more on the eyecandy factor, is planets that are animated pictures that rotate. even a rectangular bitmap that scrolls by, rather than a 3d rendered sphere, if thats too process intensive.
29. Another biggie that was on the old lists, was the ability to save your turn files before the end of the turn. you spend 30 minutes working on a turn, run out of time, and your not done. currently, you cant save the state of your orders and then come back to them later. It would be very nice to be able to do this.
30. Customizable turn simulation for non-human setups, like setup 10 ai races, let them grow for xxx turns or until a specific event has happened. This would make up a kind of scenario editor or ai test.
31. Fuel/Energy feature for components and facilities with abilities which depend on the level of energy, e.g. Talisman is filled with 100% divine energy (refuel at Fate Shrine or such), energy and to hit bonus decreases by ... I do not know yet
32. Ability to turn off/on facilities, would be a nice feature for finite resources games or for embargos against allies?
33. Different kinds of shields beyond phased and nonphased.
34. Systems with orbiting planets would be cool.
35. Replace atmosphere types with a slider. There would be the atmosphere types (oxygen none argon methane hydrogen etc,) each representing a number. Your race would then have a number on the slider. The closer a planets slider is to yours, the more facilities/population you could have, the easier it would be to mine, the faster your population would reproduce. Eventually, the planets slider gets so far away fromy your number the colony becomes domed, or you can't colonize at all.
36. Space monsters, space pirates.
37. Shipping lanes that appear as some dull line and go between the spaceport in a system, all planets in that system, and the spaceport in the next system over. Then the ability to blockade that shipping line and steal those resources.
38. Make tachyon sensors have range like scanners.
39. Switch the construction quee to be for one entire sector, and then make it similar to the research que.
40. Change the research method back to SEIII's
41. Keep warp points!
42. Keep Opening and closing warppoints.
43. Everyone has always been salivating over the idea of having colonies in deep space. building massive space stations (called 'sides' that will eventually break away from the Federation and form the Principality of Zeon...) that can hold population and generate research, intel, and resources. This could be addressed by having components of those types being added to ships, even without the ship actually holding any population. likewise it could be addressed by enabling some sort of 'lesser' stellar construction that did not have to be built around a star. or, perhaps in the far future of Space Empires, ships / bases will be able to hold population and have facility type abilities.
44. "Off-road" travel (move in interstellar space without using warp points)
45. Support for *.avi (or other animation format) in place of any *.bmp used in the game - probably unnecessary though if there is realtime 3D rendering!
45. Even more moddability, made possible by plugins - you don't like the resource system? Implement your own in any programming language you like, just make sure it links to the rest of SE5 using some standardized API - or maybe something like Stars! Supernova Genesis' "RDL" (Rules Description Language)
46. Realtime rendered ships & planets - yeah I know it's already in, but they're cool! (You say that cuts down on moddability? Just make it some standard format - most of us use some sort of 3D program or another, there's got to be a converter for Moray to DXF or whatever you use!)
47. Better sound effects! [Big Grin] Even SE4 Gold's "enhanced" sound effects, to be honest, aren't all that great
48. Some sort of prioritization system on the SitRep (stole that right off MOO3 [Big Grin] it means the turn log) - color coding or different font sizes for different levels of urgency, perhaps? or filters - show only urgent Messages, etc.
49. Ability to order cloaked ships/units not to fight when they enter a sector containing enemies they can see, or those enemies enter their sector... annoying when those fancy unarmed spy satellites initiate combat with an enemy battlecruiser
50. Ability to queue orders in turn-based games - "I want you to load satellites here, drop them there, and repeat - oh crud the ship already executed its orders! now it won't repeat anything!
51. Planet Classification Schemes, like in MOO3 - give a planet up to 3 (or whatever #) designators such as "Mineral Rich", "Frontier", "Research Colony", etc. and have AI templates for facility construction on those types of colonies such as "Mineral rich colonies get 1 spaceyard, 1 robotoid factory, and the rest miners" or "Frontier colonies get" - the trouble would be to get the AI to reconcile planets with multiple classifications - what proportion of miners vs. research facilities vs. farmers
52. Facilities that take up multiple numbers of facility slots
53. Combination of facility slots, cargo space, and maybe even population space on a planet into "surface area" - you CAN have more defenses on a planet, but you have to sacrifice facilities or population, conversely you CAN make it a mega industrial complex but there won't be room for weapons platforms
54. Multiple spaceyards per planet!
55. Realtime 3D combat! :insert smiley here, I ran out of smileys: No really, I'm serious, they're doing it with MOO3 (well not the 3D part) - the way it works is, each of your fleets is divided into 1-8 taskforces, and the taskforces are what you actually control in combat, instead of piddling with the individual ships, which can be a pain when you have 100 ships on the battlefield! So early in the game, your TF's might be 1 escort, but later on your TF's could consist of, say, a troop transport with some heavy beam battlecruisers flanking it and PD cruisers on the edges of the formation. Then you just order the TF around - "attack enemy taskforce X" and they attack it, but each ship chooses its own target without having it manually specified. Sort of like a more advanced Version of SE4's "Formations"
56. Populations and facilities that actually consume resources! (Organics for most populations except mechanoids, none for autotrophs (populations that gather solar energy for food), and all resources for facility operation)
57. ** Custom moddable resources - you want Ironium/Boranium/Germanium instead of min/rad/org? You want "special resources" that are found only on rare planets and required to build exotic technology? You want to model every element known to man in the game so you need Titanium to build armor and Hydrogen for fuel cells? You got it!
58. Variable tech tree - like in MOO3 (a lot of my ideas are from there :insert smiley here, I ran out of smileys: ), just because it says you need level 12 Particle Physics to get Phasors doesn't mean you'll actually get it then - there's a random factor and you might actually get Phasors at level 11, or level 14!
59. Ability to put multiple damage types on a weapon so it can be 1/2x to shields but once it pierces the shields it's armor piercing, or damages only engines - some sort of checklist in the data files like "Damages shields? Yes, how much? 50% of normal? OK, how about armor? Oh, it skips armor...
60. Component/facility/unit(?) mods (generalization of weapon mounts) that modify any ability of a component, specified by name - "This mod increases the 'Firing rate' of your weapons, cutting it in half. (Works best with real time combat :insert smiley here, I ran out of smileys:) And this one doubles the 'Cloak level' of your stealth devices..."
61. Firing Arcs and Shield/Armor/Component Arcs!!! My phasor can only fire 90 deg. forward and I'm shooting from an angle of 325 deg. relative to your cruiser, so I'm going to hit a hole in your shield and probably hit your engine, since it's on the left!
62. Real leaky shields/armor - my shield has an 80% deflection ratio, meaning that on average, 20% of shots will pass right through! (or maybe 20% of each attack will penetrate)
63. Something I've always wished for in a space game - the "Lego" ship design model! (I believe I suggested this when SE4 was in development :insert smiley here, I ran out of smileys:) Basically what it is is, your ships are designed modularly - you simply drag components onto a grid, where each component must be connected to another component at specified connection points. Each component has a size and shape in grid squares, so a laser gun might be a 3x3 square with a 5-square line projecting from one side, while an internal component like life support could be represented by a simple block. Each component would also have a weight, which may or may not be proportional to its size (a 20 kT cargo bay will be mostly empty space so it's larger than a 20kT meson bLaster). Then various calculations are done on the ship to determine its vital statistics - a to-defense bonus/penalty could be calculated from the overall size of the ship in grid squares, for instance, while the ship's acceleration would be the thrust provided by the engines divided by the mass. (Could even have retro thrusters for backwards movement and rotational thrusters for turning...) Then, when the ship is damaged from some particular direction, the components on that side are hit first. Of course, this is probably more trouble than it's worth to begin with, both from a programming and a gameplay perspective
64. More realistic/sophisticated planetary habitability and sensor models - take a look at LINK (http://sourceforge.net/docman/display_doc.php?docid=4154&group_id=17579) I cooked up for the "Universe" project - hey, even something like the temp/grav/rad model from Stars! would work, if atmosphere were thrown in as well!
65. Remote terraforming!
66.
Planets, ships, and units of fairly continuously varying size - instead of planets being "Large", they would be "24,500 km" and population and storage capacity would vary as the square of the radius. Ships could be built in any size you want, with QNP (or even NP, for combat!) ratios calculated automatically, and shipsets would no longer be "this is an escort, this is a frigate" but instead there could be "lines" of ships (customizable in some text file of course) - standard ships, transports, carriers, colony ships, bases, etc. and your basic shipset would have pictures for various ranges in each of those categories - who needs a neostandard when you can say "this picture is for standard ships from 100-149 kT, this is for standard ships from 151-200 kT, etc." ... of course, this might play havoc with mods that change the basic component sizes for realism or sci-fi universe purposes - Aaah, I decreased the size of components, now all my ships look like escorts! :insert smiley here, I ran out of smileys:
67. Realistic unit sizes - 20 kT fighters are ridiculous! :insert smiley here, I ran out of smileys: How about modelling down to the ton on units?
68. Keep the modability, add to it.
69. Simultanious multiplayer, like SE4 is now only improved (save before end of turn ability, especially)
70. Real time combat is not worth sacraficing PBW style multiplayer. However, AI-run real time might work, and RT as a replacement for the current tactical mode would. As long as strategic is still there. Getting rid of the one fleet fires then the other situation is a Good Thing.
71. Ability settings for most/all abilities. Say you could make a Self Destruct that works 50% of the time when the ship is boarded, a better one that works 75%, etc.
72. Real-time rendered models are OK, but it's not important. Especially since programs like DOGA or Bryce will -not- be able to export to these (even with a filter- waaay too many polygons)
73. Better intelligence system
74. More free-form treaties. Say I want to offer just resupply and radioactives trade, for example.
75. Have the AI ignore things it isn't set to respond to. For example currently you can ask it to leave a system and it will say yes or no. However it never does anything either way, so it should just ignore.
76. The current system and planet view works fine. Maybe a few more (hidden?) details.
77. Another thing from the SE4-planning days: Techs with "ors" and maybe even "nots" as well as "ands" in their prerequisites - so maybe you need either Particle Physics or Wave Mechanics to get EM Radar (I seem to recall posting a similar example a few years ago when SE4 was in development [Eek!] ), or you can either research The Light Side Of The Force or The Dark Side Of The Force, but once you research one, you can't get the other!
78. ** Money. A more advanced economic model.
79. Diplomacy that actually works (steal the model from EUII):
a. Your ally has been attact, join the war or suffer the consequenses (drop in happines and reputation)
b. Peace treaties where the winner of the war (need a point system) gets some concessions from the looser.
{Note by Phonenix-D: Maybe one but I don't want to see the second at all, except as part of a treaty system I mentioned earlier. No point systems for treaties! If one player wants concessions they should -demand- them. You can do this now in SE4 for example.}
80. Also I remember somebody wanting a tug ship ability, pull thing to other location like stations. Oh maybe fighter that can attack ships and troop targets.
81. And also maybe use a number base for shield bypass level, like cloak has.
82. Save mid-turn games.
83. AI's that don't forget about you after you've closed a warp point for 1 turn!
84. A 'programmatical' combat system and rules: IF...THEN...ELSE, CASE, etc. similar to VisualBasic or something like it)
85. Don't sacrifice any current gameplay for 'eye candy'. Graphics are nice, but most of us don't play this game primarily for graphics...
86. Cloaking that is percentage based instead of level based. That way, you never really know if your ship slipped past his sensor grid until his fleet pounces on it... To elaborate:
Cloaking becomes a new ability tag "% chance to remain undetected", one for each type of cloaking (i.e. Active, Passive, Psychic, etc). It is, of coarse, a value. Cloaking components/sectors/systems have a positive value, cloak defeating sensors have a negative value. These values should NOT be cumulative (or better yet, make that moddable in settings.txt with a simple true/false line). The basic sensor ability (before any research) is just the cloaking tag attatched to the hull size. It should probably be about -50% (or 50% chance to detect normal ships). Colonies get an inate sensor rating of about -25% chance to remain undetected. That should be moddable in settings.txt as well. The values, of coarse, aren't set in stone....
If you wanted to get really elaborate, you could have seperate tags for "% chance to remain undetected" and "% chance to detect". Then you could make it so that (for example) the cloaking values don't stack, but the sensor values DO stack. (which IMO would be unbalancing, unless the sensors didn't have a high value...) I think it would also be kinda neat if there were two kinds of sensor tags, System wide, and sector wide. Then you could make all sorts of interesting cominations! (System wide sensors having a lower max ability than Sector specific sensors comes to mind...) Now comes my favorite part. [Smile] A check is made each turn to see if your ship is detected using the following formula: A - B = C where: A = Highest available cloaking % B = Highest available sensor % C = % chance of detection. As an example, we'll use my numbers above. An uncloaked ship enters a system in which you have a single colony. 0%(cloak)-25%(colony sensor)=25% chance that you will detect the ship THIS TURN. The game does a quick random number generation, and determines whether or not the ship is detected. Next turn, assuming that the ship is still in system, the game goes thru the whole process again. That way, just because you slipped past the sensors Last turn, they might detect you this turn. The opposite is true, as well; just because you detected that star destroyer as it entered your system this turn, that doesn't mean that you will be able to detect it next turn!!! [Eek!] Even better would be to make the turns between sensor checks moddable, too. Yet another line added to settings.txt.... [Roll Eyes] You could also mod a highly negative valued sector % chance to remain undetected tag onto Warppoints, if you wanted. That way, you see the cloaked ship enter the system (since it activated the WP, which would probably be notice). But as soon as it moves away from the warppoint ... I hope you had sensors researched... I provided a few examples of how versitile such a cloaking model would be. Hopefully, Aaron is convinced now. [Wink] (yes, I know he probably will never see this thread...)
87. Improved strategies and combat. SEIV strategies are not entirely intuitive (to put it diplomatically) and some of the selections don't do much of anything. Make more real options available like having a capture ship skirt around the battle to capture the enemy's repair ship or troop transports that will drop troops in the heat of battle. Make it more likely that several ships (not just one or two) will be targeted. Improve the combat movement algorithm.
88. Add an order, something like the sentry order, that will attack enemies entering the system during the turn. This would be especially useful when warp openers are around. Does you no good to defend a warp point when the enemy is more likely to open his own warp point and ravage your planets while your far superior fleet stands by and watches.
89. Cloaking that has a range, so you can only detect things close to the sensor array.
90. The ability to keep a race's attributes when they become part of your empire! It was always fun (if a bit of micromanagement) sending all my Psilons to the mineral poor worlds so they could do research and spreading out the Silicoids so they'd take all the space nobody else wanted on the planets...
91. Parasite Spore Bombs that initiate ground combat as if troops were dropped - against organic races, at least... mechanoids would need special computer viruses... allow computer viruses to be used against units as well...
92. How about Terra-Forming? Change a planet from one type to another? (not just the atmosphere!)
93. Also, I would like the population (and max # facilities) of a planet to be based on more than just the size of the planet and atmosphere. (I mean, even a moon sized planet (tiny) should be able to hold a lot more facilities!) Maybe some planets could be restricted to 'automated' facilities. (too hostile to hold population!)
94. Research & intell componets - that generate, on orbital structures [Eek!] .I wish it was in se4gold [Frown] .
95. Better AI - with diplomatic sense/ compassion/forgivness replys to human player?.
96. Better intelligence system - .See Phenoix.
97. Rouge alien trader - alien request 100000 minerals,and player selects alien componet/ship/or teck available.
98. Stars in background - of planet systems that flicker/go out.
99. Save/printout- of begining game settings setup.Example With this game setting then playing this game, i may Lose or maybe Win.Know i can go back to a saved settings file, to see what i set, and what changes i need to adjust, so i can play another new game with better performance.
100. Make ftrs still worthwhile in later in game
101. AI's as strong or stronger then the TDM and the other mods...
102. Some new additional races
103. Neutral AI's having the ability to expand outside their home systems
104. A very super Xenophobic Race, Hates everyone and everything, very seldom trades, makes deals, bent on total annialhation (sp) of all other races
105. Keep Moddable
106. New additional planet types and atmospheres
107. New additional atmospheres
108. New additional types of maps, including those like FQM, and others
109. I would also like to reiterate the request for 'space lanes' or cargo / logistic routes for civilian / non-combattant traffic. these lanes should be able to be intercepted / blocaded.
110. customizeable treaties. take all the components of each of the other treaties, and let the player mix and match. they can trade, but ships can still fight when in the same sector. they can share intel and resupply, but not trade. they can see each others telemetry, but do nothing else. and sliders for anything percentile, so trade can have teriffs where you are not willing to give more than x percent, even if you could be giving more. or subjugation/protectorate would have a user defineable percent of resources to cough up.
111. It's pretty frustrating that the game has passive and active EM sensing, but they behave identically. I had a great idea for a mod wherein all ships naturally have some passive EM cloaking if they're not broadcasting, or targeting, or anything. If the Passive cloaking could be set to deactivate whenever any of those things happened, that would be awesome. Also, if the "drop troops" ability were implemented, that would be good, since of all the unit launches, putting troops on a planet is the only one that demands specialized equipment. Not so much for, say, mines.
112. When moving cargo, there are options for move five and move ten. What I want is an option to move one hundred. Yes, I play this game too much.
113. Additional Resource types (money, SPice, etc.) added via mods. I think SE4 is close to being able to Mod the DUNE universe - SPice would be part and VERY rare, but you also need the ability to have an AI race that would act as Navigators. SHips would have no ability to warp - they would have to load aboard guild heighliners (Obviously this would need REALLY big ships)
114. Obviously, Intel needs to be greatly improved.
115. Saving Game in turn (as others state) needs to be in an upcoming patch. I spent 2 hours doing a turn the other day and got a phone call that made me run out - I left the PC on but it locked up while I was gone [Frown]
116. I would like planets to actually ORBIT the stars in a system. Maybe not in Real time, but they would move around a bit in between turns.
117. MOre Strategys that work. Abilityt o have sub-fleets (aka Task Forces, within fleets with different orders).
118. Sats should spread evenly around planets!
119. A note taking system built into the game - I want to be able to add notes to Races, planets/systems, fleets, I forget sometimes what my long term goals were for any given "thing" and this would help facilitate that. Especially in PBW, where some turns don't run for 2-3 days. I don't think that would need to be incorporated in the .GAM file obviously.
120. Edit Messages already sent and be able to send multiple Messages to other players.
121. Ability to export current tech levels. (the list that is, so I can print) Maybe even the ability to compare to a Partners for trading purpose.
122. Bring back the "Armor/Outer/Inner" Hull section for ship designs from Space Empires III! This was one of my favorite ideas from SE3 that I'm really mad that didn't get added to SE4. And to add to this feature, on damage points hitting Outer hull components, have an option in the game allowing the Last point of damage (if more then one point) "leak" through the Outer Hull to inflict damage in the inner hull.
123. Speaking of "Leak" Damage, it would be nice if their was some option to add "Leaky Shields" to the game so that a small portion of damage in a volley of fire could "leak through" the sheilds and hit the hull. The ammount to cause a leak would of course be optional in .txt files.
124. Bring back the old system of Fleet Management tactics from SE3!!! I like the new fleet formations and new tactics section from SE4, but I think the old SE3 tactical management of fleets was a little better then SE4 is someways. It would be nice if SE5 did base some of its Tactic options on both SE3 and SE4 and combine them together in SE5
125. Pirates, revolutions/independence wars, better ground combat....still would be great!
126. Wouldn�t it be great, to get an option to build up the formation of my fleet individually? Say...,my battleship should be flanked by this two destroyers ... , and this battleship should always be on slot number 3, the destroyers on slot number 4+5.everytime, when it comes to battle, this specific battleship would be always guarded by this to destroyers, even if the whole fleet counts 100ships.... or in short words, it should be possible to give ships in a fleet a specific place/slot!
127. stronger AI. i like singe player very much so this needs work. maybe even a special mode where the choices are limited (limited tech, full resources and so on) so that the ai doesn't have to much areas where it can f*ck up. this can probably be done by making a mod?
128. Improve the intelligence system of the game.
Escpecially the defense system seems to be weird. You should be able to complete a defensive project that then would be stored. In other words, it doesn't disappear after completing but get stored.
129. In combat, turn the sats to face the enemy. I hate it when they appear on the other side of the planet. they are useless there
130. Randomized damage--listed damage +/- X%. Adds at least a little variety in combat.
131. Different types of warp points. I remeber there was a thread about it sometime ago, but I'm to lazy to look. Also I still the mod script lang idea.
132. In simultaneous single-player games, computer players that take their turns while the human player does!
133. The one thing I'd most like to see changed/added/improved, other than eye-candy issues, is: Race Habitability. Take a look at Pax Imperia 2. Though most of that game IMO sucked (the demo was better, argh), race design is a true gem. First off, you could spend more points to breath more than one atmosphere type. Second off, a planet's habitability was based on comparing the planet's atmosphere and temperature against what your race could breathe (a simple yes/no) and against your race's temperature-tolerance band (a weighted value; the closer to centerline you got, the better). Thus, a world might be absolute hell for player A's colonists, and a pure paradise for player B's colonists. Player B will therefor value that planet more than Player A will, when negotiating colonisation rights in a border system -- though Player A would be best served by determining what player B likes, and pricing that world accordingly. And so on.
134. So; comparing to SE4/Gold ... allowing the selection of (for race points) additional atmosphere types would be great. Inserting a habitation value for temperature would be great. You could even go a step further, and add one for gravity, and end up with three variables to consider. Next up, and also from Pax Imperia 2, is an issue I terribly miss in SE4: the issue of flag-versus-shipset. PaxImp2 has TWO seperate places to select those; your flag is one issue, your ship style is another. IOW, picking the (for example) Sallega shipset would not REQUIRE you (barring a customised copy) to use the Sallega flag. PaxImp2 has some 20-30 flags in it, most quite nice. Then maybe a dozen ship styles, also fairly nice (if only game play didn't suck).
135. Now, on to somehting I desperately wish could be added even to SE4, but would wait for SE5 to get if I had to: NEGATIVE PREREQUISITES. Sorry for shouting, but this is something that most 4X games don't currently model: the concept that at certain key junctures (not every tech level, but every now and then), you get the option to "turn" your entire racial technology "paradigm" in one direction ... or another. You can't do both. You can't have it all; research is no longer like Pokemon ("gotta tech 'em all"). If you get component X, you will NEVER have the option to get facility Y ... or vice versa.
136. Change the way minefields work. Make one "mine" built actually representative of a certain strength of minefield ... when it's laid into a sector (or whatever), that sector gets that strength of minefield. Based on the strength of the minefield, EVERY ship entering, or spending an entire turn inside, the field has a CHANCE, not an absolute, to take damage, based on the initial mine built. If they do, there's a (muchly reduced) chance to take MORE. And so on, until they stop taking damage. Each impact reduces the overall strength ofthe field by a little. Minesweepers reduce the strength within a random range. Um, here's an example, with out-of-thin-air numbers: Say each mine built at a world and deployed by a ship or base represents ... 20 points of "depth" for the field. Two minesweeper2 enter the field, able to sweep ... say, 4-6 apiece. Okay, let's say they get exactly average, and sweep 10 from that field. That leaves a "depth" of 10, still. If we suppose the chance for a ship to be hit is equal to the field's depth, then each of the sweepes now has a 10% chance to impact a mine while sweeping. Let's say both do, but aren't damaged (they're heavily armored). Now, they each have a 5% chance to strike a SECOND mine; let's say only the second one does, and it survives, but is crippled. Now it has a 2.5% chance (rounded however the program likes) to strike a THIRD mine (which might kill it); let's say it doesn't, however. Three strikes happened; field depth is down by 3 more, and stands at 7. Next turn, the defending player lays one MORE mine unit, increasing the strength by 20 more ... to 27. Obviously, those two minesweepers, ESPECIALLY the crippled one, are in trouble. You can then introduce "decay", and even dispersal. Presume some fraction of a field is lost every turn, at a minimum; let's say 1/20th, or 5%. A 20-depth minefield, not swept and not run into, becomes a 19-depth field for the start of the next turn. If a single ship hits a mine, that satisfies the minimum of one mine gone, so ... no extra loss occurs. Dispersal can be modelled by increasing the decay rate, for any non-ship entity in the field (planets, moons, asteroid belts, wormholes, etc, etc). And/or decreased by the presence of minelaying ships or bases (who can tend to the field, retrieve strays, and so on). Decay-and-dispersal represents mines simply drifting away, having their electronics packages go dead, hitting random spacejunk and going "boom", and so on.
137. Other than that ... well, 3D graphics isn't really a big requirement for me; "pseudo3D" would be fine (3d-looking, but still using 2D graphics). I must admit I like the idea of an animated solar system (again, see PaxImp2 for an example, complete with Warp Points). Obviously, in a turn-based game, the animation would be sort of stop-motion, but ... *shrug* ... You could have the planets move at their own speed during the simultaneous-move replay. You could put a ring depicting the orbit of the planet, and brighten/darken/thicken/etc a segment to represent the planet's expected movement during the next turn.
138. Lastly, KEEP THE MODDABILITY OF SE4. That's what prompted me to buy SE4/Gold, it's what keeps SE an actively-played game.
139. By far the most annoying thing about SE4 is having a superior fleet beaten in simultaneous combat by the crap AI that takes over this. I would like more control over this. Such as when defending a warp point let me set my initial ships position. And somehow give me more control over what my ships do in the combat.
140. More options for stellar manipulations:
a. Create Stars from Nebulas (Hey, that's how they form in real life!)
b. Create/destroy organic infestations/warp rifts/other new system types added in SE4 Gold
141. Do not allow mining on ringworlds/sphereworlds. Farming is OK, but mining?!? you BUILT the thing and now you expect to MINE stuff out of it???
142. Population Management:
a. Population restrictions based on "population centre" facilities, not atmos type. Of course, non-breathing populations would need special domed "pop centres", which don't hold as many ppl...
b. Autonomous population migration: Civilians should be able to move around the galaxy without the help of Imperial Population Transports. For example, whole planetfulls of ppl might move away from conflict if they are peace-loving, or toward it if they are warriors/ beserkers=-). They could also be also motivated by things like plague, economic conditions, planetary conditions, overpopulation & the desire to explore. They should even be able to move across imperial borders if necessary, settling in neighbouring empires.
c. The above could lead to refugee crises- overpopulation of a planet should be possible, and it should lead to serious problems (Plagues, riots)
d. Underpopulation should also be a concern. Please enable the minimum population per facility! (although proportions mod does a good job of this already).
e. Plagues need to be more complex (ie less predictable) than just "level 1 medbay cures level 1 plague."
f. Captured populations should keep all of their racial modifiers! A planet full of one species shouldn't suddenly lose their +10% minerals extraction just because they have a new govenment! This would introduce interesting choices when it comes to relocating population.
g. More structured empires: Yes, I'm talking about imperial capitals, regional capitals, trade routes, cities, localised resource pools... Rather than micromanage these things, let the game decide where they are and how they grow. All the player has to do is defend them=-)
h. Less predictable intel: More factors need to be introduced to make it less cut and dried.
i. More complex and competitive ground combat. How about giving a positive modifier to races fighting on their "home" terrain? (ie gas races at an advantage when fighting on a gas giant).
j. Less rigid distinctions between different game objects, allowing modders to blur the boundaries between (for example) planets and asteroids, or between ships and planets, or between fighters and troops, or between ships and bases... the possibilities for modders would be limitless.
k. The ability to warp (ie denying warp travel to neutrals and fighters) controlled by a moddable ability rather than hardcode. This would be great for modders.
l. Ability to build treaties in the same way you build trade packages (I'll give you access to my resupply bases in exchange for research alliance.)
m. Advanced order queues for ships: adding boolean operators into order queues would enable us to automate loads of ship operations and reduce micromanagement.
143. Ships and planets that take up different number of squares/hexes/whatever on the combat map? Currently all ships are 1x1 and all planets are 4x4... MOO2 had 1x1, 2x2, and 3x3 ships, and 3x3 through 7x7 planets, IIRC... SE5 could go one better and have moddable ship sizes that don't even have to be squares!
144.Improved micromanagement features:
a. Be able to give the launch order to planets from the colonies list.
b. Be able to send ships or fleets to waypoints, give launch orders to waypoints or pick up and drop troops from the Ship/Units list instead of having to go to each individual ship
c. Allow sorting in the retrofitting menu and the ship fleeting menu.
145. Almost no facilities:
You set sliders (priorities) to determine what is built. You could still have a research center 3 facility, however you wouldn't be personally building it on the planets. This basically means you could have it the old way, but a planet governor controls based on the slider. You would click Y/N on some checkboxes for SpaceYard and Supply Depot. Terraforming would not be a facility, but one of the priorities that you set for a planet. Also, population moves automatically between planets (sort of - see below)
146. No direct control of Population Transports/Troop Transports/Fuel Ships
Instead, like MOO2, you have freighter fleets for those areas (or one, I would suppose if you prefer). You might capture a new Oxygen breathing race in combat, and since they are living on a Hydrogen planet, you would tell the planet administrator to move them to an Oxygen planet and replace them with Hydrogen breathers. Based on the size of your population fleet (and how many other demands you have placed on the fleet), will determine how quickly the population on the planet is replaced. Troop and Supply fleets would be a bit different. Your fleet/ships will have a support cost. The support cost goes up or down depending on how close you are to a supply depot. You might also totally cut off support, if there is a blockage between the fleet and the nearest supply depot (which would make the raiding of supply lines - a key tactic in warfare - a valid strategy). Keep in mind this support is not for just fuel. My vision is that when you invade planets, troops from your ships crew do the invasion, not a separate troop unit. So if your supply line is cut, you do not have any more troops being replenished on your ships. Also, through combat and normal attrition, troops die, so in theory you could have pilotless ships if your supply lines are cut off long enough.
147. On the main screen, show icons to indicate if a planet has a supply depot or spaceyard. Would make life easier than clicking on all of the planets in a system.
148. Reports that are sortable...
149. The ablility to name ships and planets and systems what ever you want and only you know...
150. The ability to add facility slots. Ex: Build a level facility I on panet X and you just added 2 more slots. Think of what a level facility M would do [Big Grin] .
151. Also be nice if you could make people a resource. Ex: Small fighter requires 3 people, pilot and ground crew, while a large ship needs 1,000 people, and a Planet ship yard I 15,000 people.
152. Someone mentioned money... Well I personally like the way money is being represented in MOO3. (Yeah, I always have to bring up the MOO games don't I [Razz] Well they're GOOD - and Aaron did mention that MOO was one of his inspirations for the SE series! [Big Grin] )
Anyway, the way money is implemented in MOO3 is that you collect taxes from your population, as well as collecting money via trade treaties, tributes, and a few other sources I can't think of off the top of my head. Also, production and research don't occur automatically - you have to fund them, with a diminishing returns effect. So say you have 10,000 industry and 20,000 research. It will cost 1 AU (Antaran Unit, the MOO3 unit of money) for each industry or research point or research point you want to fund - up to your maximum; if you don't fully fund your industry or research then the extra points are wasted. Likewise, you can overfund your industry and research, but remember that diminishing returns effect? For every multiple of your industry or research, the cost per unit doubles. So with your 10,000 industry, if you want to get 30,000 production done this turn you will have to spend 10,000 AU for the first 10,000, and 20,000 for the second 10,000, and 40,000 for the third 10,000, for a total of 70,000 AU! So it's possible to overdrive your production or research, but very very expensive! (This system would also work for intelligence operations, assuming they will be done on a points basis like in SE4; MOO3 isn't using the system for intel because it uses a different system - you hire and train individual spies to carry out your dirty work.)
153. A colony icon for planets that have space left for new facilities.
154. A search tools for colonies, that can mix several filters :
155. I want all my colonies with a spaceyard, not building something.
156. I want all my colonies not building something, and having more than 300 kt free in their cargo space.
157. A pop-up message when you re going to erase a fleet, by removing the Last ship.
158. Possibility to attach notes on a ship (usefull for transport missions...)
159. I�d like the construction yard to be changed
into a more realistic ability. Now you are CONSTRUCTING predefined DESIGNS.
It is more realistic to construct its components and then give the order to ASSEMBLE.
Space Yard Facilities will then be used for constructing bridges, CQ, LF, Engines etc etc.
The �surplus� of one turns build would be stored on the planet. (Ability 1 storage 2500kT).
Cargo facilities can enlarge the storagecapacity. When you have made all components you construct (=assemble) the design. Assembling cost could be an ability (10 % of the total constructioncost of all items). You will be able to produce more efficient but it
will also mean a better planning and transport of builded items. Yard Facility on ships can work with a storage ability (500 kT and rising when achieving a higher techlevel). If not sufficient you will have to use more ships !!
160. I would like to have a button in the system screen:
a. If you do an intelligence you can put the info right where it belongs. A button next to the buttons Construction/next turn would give you a summery of al notes in all systems.
b. want the ability to build as many ringworlds and sphere worlds as there are
stars in a system. I also want to the ability to �upgrade� a ringworld to a sphereworld.
Maybe a new feature to put in a component.
c. When starting a new game you can choose how many units and ships you allow
to be in a game for a player (both 20000). Make this an inputfield where you can put
a number instead of clicking and clicking and clicking etc etc ..... or is this
being solved in 1.84 ? Haven�t looked yet.
d. Give Starbases the ability to move so i can position them on warppoints without the need of a ship yard. I�ll even settle for a movement of 1 sector in 3 turns or so.
161. A simple abstracted tactical ground combat "arena" somewhat like we now have for space battles. "2D" would be fine, but something more then now, {pretty please}. {So we can maneuver around a bit and seize stuff and occupy dirt and blow things up more personally. So much more satisfying, lol!}
162. A more interesting "boarding" battle combat arena also.
163. The ability to set the maintenance cost of each individual component. Either as a percentage of builds cost or, better yet, specific values for each of the resources consumed each turn.
164. I'd like to see colonized planets generate usable population points to a pool like resource that are used as a "resource" globally, to build units, man starships, man factories. The "men" required would be specified in the component text. We could have other technologies, traits, components or facilities that reduce these requirements and/or increase their availability.
165. A larger space combats arena and a better "retreating ship" design. Having to go and hide in the corner or run around trying to run the clock down to survive, while cute, leaves much to be desired. How about... If you are slower then the pursuing ships you get caught, and if you are faster you automatically get away. I know it's a bit more complex then that and yes maybe there could be techs that modify that basic concept but generally if you are slower you don't get away, unless the enemy chooses not to pursue. If you are faster you get away even if they are pursuing, barring the uber-secret long-range tractor beam or temporal glue your mad scientists just invented. [Wink]
166. For Aaron to magically change his mind about the real-time combat for SEV. If I wanted real-time combat, there are already fifty or so games on the mainstream market form much larger companies with flashier graphics that I could get. I know that the end of turn-based gaming is inevitable, but maybe you could put it off for another year or two?
167. More realistic planetary damage! Drop 100 nuclear bombs on a planet and all that happens is the weapon platforms blow up? [Roll Eyes] Every weapon in the game should have one or more "collateral damage Ratings" which specifies how much damage it does to population, planet conditions, troops, etc.
168. Maybe stupid idea, maybe not, but wouldn't a "evolution" research line be something? ... like research and intel. Ok evolution takes a lot more time usually, but space colonization also takes more time to do [Smile] . But for example, you are terran.. and go to space more and more, you lose physical strength a lot, but you develope (with added research: genetic manipulation, cloning, random factors) telekinetic skills and telepathic abilities. With the goal to ascent to a higher being? or like a very powerfull "ancient" space race that pocesses abilities beyond normal comprehension... (like shadows and vorlons?)
169. some more things to consider for SE 5.
1 System and Galaxy
1.1 Sector limitation
1.1.1 If i can put 100 mines TL 3 and 100 Satellites TL 3 in the same sector
then it should be possible to put more then 100 mines TL 3 in one sector.
Change the sector limitation into a maximum of kT instead a certain number
of units.
1.1.2 Moving ships/drones through a "full" sector will not be possible.
You will have to engage combat or go around it.
1.2 Asteroids and Meteorites
1.2.1 Asteroids and meteorites which move through the galaxy (on a collision course).
1.2.2 Asteroids and meteorites can be destroyed by all weapons by reducing
the damage resistance to zero.
1.2.3 Asteroids and meteorites will move 1 sector each turn.
1.2.4 Asteroids and meteorites will move through warppoints and will be
handled as a ship while passing through.
1.3 Components and Facilities
1.3.1 Massive Energy Shield
1.3.1.1 Promote the Massive Energy Shield to a facility in the tech area of shielding.
1.3.2 Standard Movement Power
1.3.2.1 Propulsion is based on standard kT Movement Power (MP). An Ion Engine will have
100 kT of MP. 6 Ion Engines on a frigate will give you (100x6)/150 is 4 movement.
1.3.2.2 MP will be rounded down to an integer. (eg 4.8 will be 4 !!).
1.4 Units
1.4.1 Troops
1.4.1.1 Combat with troops will be desplayed just like combat screens for ships/planets etc in a arena.
1.4.1.2 Troops will have to have the ability to move (see 1.4.1.1)
@capnq 1.3.3 Construction Yards
You�re right that it will increase the time to manage your construction queues. But the idea was to make it more realistic. Centralizing your construction queues to a few planets would compensate for the increase of management.
Normally i�d use 5 planets as maximum as construction planets. One facility and about 10 space yards do the job quite well. Combine this with the suggestion to use more slots for a even bigger construction yard and more cargo space and the possibility to have more yards on a planet. I think it will eventually make it easier to play the game and managing your construction queues.
170. Meets the same hardware requirements of SEIV Gold. I don't know when I'll be able to upgrade my computer, so if the hardware requirements change, I won't be able to play the game. And I so want to continue playing this game in whatever form the new game will take.
171. Tactical ship combat screen: bigger, and when a ship reaches an edge, it will appear in the opposite side of it, as representing a spherical sector of space. Its not very realistic to destroy a ship by cornering it.
172. Tactical ground combat: a ground tactical combat map! Yes you can also create your ground / air units bearing in mind mobility / protection / firepower. Maybe some combat like in Panzer General I, with several categories of units: artillery, infantry, armor, aircraft (and may be ships in worlds with oceans?).Of course, turn based, as it should ALWAYS be a good strategy game! Allow use of all kind of weapons (seekers!) and other componets (engines) for ground units.
173. Maybe some ideas may be taken from Star General(not a good game, but I liked the combination of ground and space combat, someone remembers it??). Of course if the player don�t feel like to emulate Erwin Rommel, he can resolve it the�"strategic way"
174. Fighters should be capable of operations on planet surfaces to support ground units from ground bases (the equivalent of fighter bays but on the ground), but perhaps they must not be allowed to go to outer space by their own propulsion, only when they are transfered to a spaceship in a "space strategic" turn.
175. Bigger stellar system screens, with more or less the same number of stellar bodies in it but more distanced, as a stellar solar system is in most part "empty" space. I dont think very realistic to send reinforcements from Earth to a base in Pluto in one or two months. Players wil be more careful when deploying their defense units.
176. A bigger universe map: allow more, much more than
255 stellar systems, maybe a higher proportion of un-colonizable systems, but it will make the logistics of space travel a little more fun.
177. Ship movement: move up the limit of 255 standard movement units for ships in order to allow more freedom in selecting a scale for Quasi Newtonian Propulsion use.
178. This is what come to my mind now, I am sure I will have more ideas in the next few minutes... Some of those ideas were already posted by other people in more or less the same words, but I think this reflects the fact that SEIV is a great game and it only needs some additions to make it THE PERFECT STRATEGY GAME!
179. Design the game with a client/server architecture, where clients would be:
* the user interface screen
* computer AI's
* ministersand the server would be the game engine & state.
This would allow (among other things):
* aspiring AI designers to implement their own AI's (virtually no limits on what the AI examines from its vantage point when making a move)
* avid players to code their own user interfaces
* avid players to implement ministers that do exactly what they want them to do
180. I would also like to see some expansion on the idea of trade. Right now, trade is completely transparent to the player. I would like to see trade ships which are not really under your control (since they are free traders) but do require protection. This would not really add to the micromanagement, and would add realism since a government has far less control of free traders compared to military ships. These autonomous ships would establish their own trade routes (viewable only to the home empire and the empire to be traded with). Both empires would share the responsibility of protecting their trade ships. You could fleet your ships with them as protection, but then fleet control would be turned over to the computer.
181. Trade ship construction would also not be under your control. It would be controlled by some sort of suppy & demand routine. Possibly the player could have a method to increase/decrease trade ship construction over the whole empire at the cost of lowering the empire's overall construction rates accordingly. An attack on an enemy trade ship would disrupt trade, and the movement of resourses & supplies around your empire. Maybe even be able to capture enemy trade ships. This would make the spaceport idea a little different in that you would need a spaceport and trade ships operating from that system. There could also be trade ship related research areas. These would not be able to give the trade ships any offensive military capabilities, but would be in the areas of speed, defense, capacity, increased exchange rate, etc. Trade should be linked to happiness and resource procurement at the system level. It should also fill the role of supply lines. If a part of an empire is cut off, it should suffer in supply, and its ability to send/receive resources.
182. It occured to me while adding SectTypes to my modding program that it might be nice if the descriptions for the planets actually had an in game effect.
You could perhaps add a bunch more fields to the SectTypes file so that for example on a "Tiny planet dominated by carniverous flora." people would be less happy and reproduce slower. or a "Huge planet which is rumored to be the home of ancient powers." would give a bonus to research facilities.
183. Warp point toys. For example delayed-exit warp points, moving warp points, randomly opening & closing warp points.
184. If you have static defences by a warp point, your enemy should have to fight them in order to go through it. As it is now, you can fly up to the warp point on the same side as the defences, start combat, spend 30 turns keeping out of range of all those bases/ sats, and then after combat has ended just warp through. AGH!
185. Change neutral empires to allow ships to warp after a human player takes over.
186. What about getting rid of the Warp points and allowing any capital ship to have an Hyperdrive to jump to any system in line of sight (not blocked by other system) within a 100 light years ? That would be far more realistic, would get over all those "warp point shock point defenses", and would dramatically change the strategy.
187. Re-balance the weapons using the fine work of the modding community.
One recurring example: (Progressively increase the structural points needed to destroy seekers at higher levels, or apply a progressive defensive bonus to the seeker).
188. Here's something: self-destruct devices. I really, really hate these things. One of my favorite elements of any space combat game is boarding actions. And they're in SE! Which is great, except they don't really work. Because of the Damned self-destruct devices. All anybody needs is level three propulsion and suddenly the whole ship capture system is useless. A much more useful model would be to include some sort of device that would set off explosives when boarded, and you could decide how many explosives you needed. An even better addition would be to give the self-destruct device some sort of percentage failure chance. Another good thing would be more incentive not to carry them, so a way for someone else to set them off? How many sci-fi movies have there been with some super-duper ship or space station that gets trashed by some guys sneaking on board and setting off the ever-present self-destruct device? Another good thing would be if the devices were connected to specific components. Suppose you have some shield technology that you don't want to fall into enemy hands, so you put a bomb in the shields so that they'll be blown up if the ship is boarded. Actually, I hate to say this, as I mostly don't believe that SE should emulate any other game, but MOO2 had a pretty good boarding model, even to the point of having breaching pods (assault shuttles) and specific missions for boarding parties.
189. Something little... but you know how trade grows by 1% per turn up to 20%, where the 20% is moddable (like in P&N it's 10%)? Well, how about if the rate was moddable too, and could be set for each of the individual resources and points - so you could have Minerals, Organics, and Radioactives trade growing by 1%/turn up to 10%, say, and Research and Intel trade growing by half a percent a turn up to 5%. Also, MOO1/2 had this and I think it adds a bit of realism - establishing trade or research treaties doesn't initially produce a profit - in fact it initially costs money to set up trade routes, but after a few turns you start making money.
190. The ability to analyze units and facilities for tech, not just ships!
191. Better implementation of TCP/IP
192. Making a new component call it a warp generator, with the abilites of the gravitational condenser and the grav. quantum resonator. Open and close your own warp points, maps would not need stars interconnected (If you wanted it like that) This would better simulate, babaylon 5 type movement.
193. Ability to choose square to square movement. Forget warp lines/points altogether. Better to simulate Warp speed (Star Trek) type movement. This might be mutually excludable with other Light speed styles upon choosing which to use on game start.
194. When ground combat was initiated, switch to a small hex map and play a simple board wargame with ground "counters" with odds rations, zones of control etc.. Make this a different scale of play--- Ten round of ground combat for every 1 "space" turn. Also adding a ground unit logistics model of some sort, so that every "space turn" could effect the ground supply situation. Create ground counter type units instead of the component type units with size Bn, Rgt, Div etc.
195. Allow for a component called "system ship racks" allowing for the piggy-back ride of ships not equiped with warp generators on ships with them.. Makes for interesting strategies.
196. Allow for map editing with name tags with possibly a dashed line, that would appear on the map-- neutral zone--Romulan border--etc.
197. Allow map editing for more than one starting point for each race--like homeworld:fully developed--Colony:minor development--outpost-- minimum development. allow for starbases to start the game already built in the map editor.
198. Create an AI that will use the "proportions " mod effectivly.
And do this all underbudget and ahead of schedule
199. A tech-list that go on indefinatly, like it does more damage every level and gets smaller, same for buildings.
200. Gouverment types, that make some things easier... dictatorship or maybe an advanced form of technocracy? and each give you a benefit and disadvantage..
201. More abilities, like create pocket dimension?
202. Warp points of varying sizes such that you can't send a ship through a warp point smaller than the ship. So do you attack the obvious route that restricts you to smaller ships, or use dreadnoughts but take the long way around? Perhaps longer warp-points would be smaller - sort of like Stars! stargates, you have to trade off distance for capacity - or the warp point creation components would have a maximum size as well as maximum distance..

This is as far I as I got tonight. Top post on Page 27 (currently raynfala post posted February 14, 2003 19:22)

[ July 02, 2003, 10:20: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

narf poit chez BOOM

July 2nd, 2003, 11:23 AM

i meant if the weapon fires and the ship has the talisman, the weapon uses more supply.

Me Loonn

July 2nd, 2003, 04:47 PM

Originally posted by Atrocities:

160
d. Give Starbases the ability to move so i can position them on warppoints without the need of a ship yard. I�ll even settle for a movement of 1 sector in 3 turns or so.
How about making bases like they are in 'Legions of Iron' ? You can move bases around, but they are sitting ducks as they cannot shoot before deplyoed. After being debloyed base has all weapons, shields etc turned on but it cannot be moved again !

Loser

July 2nd, 2003, 08:56 PM

Originally posted by Atrocities:
Name := Religious Talisman
Description := Centers the spirituality of the vehicle and focuses it towards its goal.
Pic Num := 166
Tonnage Space Taken := 50
Tonnage Structure := 50
Cost Minerals := 300
Cost Organics := 300
Cost Radioactives := 300
Vehicle Type := Ship\Base\Sat\WeapPlat\Drone
Supply Amount Used := 100
Restrictions := None
General Group := Religious
Family := 6001
Roman Numeral := 0
Custom Group := 0
Number of Tech Req := 1
Tech Area Req 1 := Religious Technology
Tech Level Req 1 := 4
Number of Abilities := 1
Ability 1 Type := Weapons Always Hit
Ability 1 Descr := Direct-fire weapons fired from this vehicle will always hit their target.
Ability 1 Val 1 := 0
Ability 1 Val 2 := 0
Weapon Type := NoneDoes this work?
When does it use these supplies?

[ July 02, 2003, 19:57: Message edited by: Loser ]

Fyron

July 2nd, 2003, 09:03 PM

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
i meant if the weapon fires and the ship has the talisman, the weapon uses more supply.AT's Talsiman will not use any supplies. That line is only used when the comp itself gets actively used. Firing weapons does not actively use the Talisman. If you make the Talisman into a weapon mount instead of a component, then you can fiddle with supply use all you like. You also get the added benefit of being more balanced by not getting the damage bonuses from larger mounts.

Loser

July 2nd, 2003, 09:34 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
If you make the Talisman into a weapon mount instead of a component, then you can fiddle with supply use all you like. You also get the added benefit of being more balanced by not getting the damage bonuses from larger mounts.You can add abilities with a Mount? Or would you just be adding an obscene amount to the to-hit?

Fyron

July 2nd, 2003, 10:03 PM

Obscene amount of to-hit bonus. You can not add abilities with a mount, unfortunately. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif