SE5, Tell Aaron what's on your Wish List [Archive] - Page 6

Fyron

July 29th, 2004, 03:17 AM

Originally posted by Colonel:
In SEIV at the start you can choose to only be able to colinize home planet type and breathable atomshere i think you should make another option of being able to colinze moons so you would have a third choose mainly i want this because i always put both options on and that annoys me playing and haveing useless moonsCheck out FQM Deluxe (http://fqm.spaceempires.net/). It gives you moons of all atmospheres.

Originally posted by Antonin:
Because I'm an historian, one of the things I wish for SE5 is a better treatment of organics (i.e., food) as a strategic commodity.

In nearly every game of SE4 I've played, organics are an afterthought unless your race has organic technology and needs lots of organics. You can pretty much build a few farms here and there and not worry. Your people almost never starve.

You mainly worry about minerals, and later, ratioactives.

Organics should be more important than they are. Many mods fix this problem. Pirates and Nomads, Adamant, GritEcon (this one's economics system would definitely interest you), AIC, Proportions, etc. But yeah, it would be good to have the resources more distributed in the stock game.

Most games I see in the stores today--the few that still carry computer games--are for the instant gratification, short-attention-span, pretty-picture crowd. I've watched several game franchises sink down to that level. Agreed. Malfador is a one man company, so there are no marketing or management goons around to force Aaron Hall to bastardize the series for the sake of MTV generation kiddies.

I have not read all the Posts in this thread, but I'm sure there are several that say "SE4 is lame! SE4 is boring! What SE5 REALLY NEEDS is, like, a 3D engine, d00d!!!" Or words to that effect. I do not believe you will find a single post of that nature in this thread, and possibly not even in the entire forums... maybe one or two.

[ July 29, 2004, 02:38: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Antonin

July 29th, 2004, 04:09 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Many mods fix this problem. Pirates and Nomads, Adamant, GritEcon (this one's economics system would definitely interest you), AIC, Proportions, etc. But yeah, it would be good to have the resources more distributed in the stock game.I've never installed any of the SE4 mods, but I have DLd and installed many of the created races. I even contributed to the creation of an SE4 race: the Crugarians.

I've stayed away from mods because I'm confused about just how they change the game, and because I don't want to install something that will make it impossible to play "vanilla" SE4. When I was looking at mods a long time ago, the whole process of installing and launching them just seemed too complicated to bother with. I don't want to screw something up and have to reinstall SE4.

Fyron

July 29th, 2004, 04:26 AM

Mods install into separate folders, so they do not affect the stock game at all. Most mods include a readme that specifies how they change the game. Using the Mod Launcher (http://www.spaceempires.net/home/modules.php?name=Downloads&d_op=getit&lid=14), it is a breeze to switch between different mods or the stock game.

Colonel

July 29th, 2004, 05:31 AM

ok i know that there is way to get around this but i think this would be cool.
In SEIV you have to join ships into one fleet to resupply one of the ships in mid space away from planets

So with that how about Two components called Docking Bays
Base Docking Bays would be bigger able to house more ships and resupply easily
Ship Docking Bays could house smaller ships and could only resupply X number of ships per turn

You would launch ships out of these docking bays like you launch fighters

Paul1980au

July 29th, 2004, 11:05 AM

Ive been thinking about supply - early on anyway what about ships that carry supplies (can be done now with ships with engines and only supply modules - but you need to fleet them to have effect)

But an idea from conquest frontier wars that could be adapted to this game. - supply ships that start out with say 10k or 20k of supplies and can be attached to ships and when they run out of supplies they simply vanish from the fleet (ie usefulness over and they can be decommisioned and perhaps used as scrap metal etc) this would perhaps allow colony ships to be fleeted then sent as far as you can send them to settle frontier worlds

Perhaps if jump gates are built in as a strategic way to traverse large distances in big map games that supply ships could be put in that way

Support ships i guess.

Ok just ideas brainstorming as you were.

Suicide Junkie

July 29th, 2004, 03:43 PM

In grade school, there was a really nice game called Robosport.

It did the real time tactical combat quite well, by allowing you to set a time limit per round of combat.
You program in your orders on all the robots (move here, wait and fire at motion, stand up/crouch/lie down, plant bomb, switch to rocket launcher, wait for x seconds, etc)

You hit the equivalent of the "end turn" button, and the robots have at it for 5, 10, 60 seconds, whatever you set. Then you give new orders and edit your old ones.

I got pretty good at it, and could take on all comers 3-1 (max four teams)
My bots moved like a swat team, covering each other, hiding in bushes, busting into buildings, setting ambushes.

---
Real time tactical done right is fantastic, and I believe Aaron can do it.

Shane Watson

July 29th, 2004, 03:47 PM

Digressing back to governors for a moment, I wanted to expand on that thought briefly.

Part of the idea surrounding this is a teird governmental system, that could be adapted and modified according to the player's tastes. In other words, being able to not only appoint officials, but to appoint them to handle specific tasks and manage other officials.

So, you could actually have something along these lines:

Emperor/President/dictator aka: The Player
Sector Barons
Subsector Dukes
Regional Directors
System Governors
Planetary Elected Officials

This is just an example, but you should be able to add as many teirs into this structure as you see fit and call the various offices what you will, along with the individuals being named as well.
---
Also, on another point and something that fills me with cold, cold fear:

ABSOLUTELY NO STORYLINES. I don't need the game to think for me or to provide some hack reason for getting my peopel out into space. WHY game companies have thought that this is a good idea I will never understand, but it totally destroys the appeal of the game for me, not to mention the replayability.

Okay, end foaming at the mouth haha.

Cheers,
~S

[ July 29, 2004, 14:48: Message edited by: Shane Watson ]

Colonel

July 29th, 2004, 05:29 PM

This is minor thing but in SEIV my ships are generally faster in combat and if go to the tactical screen i can keep AI ships at the farthest fireing range and the miss but i cant seem to get a fleet strategy that works this way

Fyron

July 29th, 2004, 08:52 PM

Originally posted by Q:
I don't see how I could to this in real-time. Real time != RTS. RTS games are just one tiny portion of the spectrum of "real time" processing. The system SJ just described is the optimal real time system.

Ed Kolis

July 29th, 2004, 09:50 PM

Originally posted by Colonel:
This is minor thing but in SEIV my ships are generally faster in combat and if go to the tactical screen i can keep AI ships at the farthest fireing range and the miss but i cant seem to get a fleet strategy that works this way Have you tried setting all ship types to break formation and a movement strategy of Maximum Weapons Range / Maximum Weapons Range?

edit: oh, sorry, I thought you were talking about YOUR max firing range, assuming you had a longer range than them... hmm, your problem is a bit different...

[ July 29, 2004, 20:52: Message edited by: Ed Kolis ]

Colonel

July 29th, 2004, 10:05 PM

Multi grid combat-Have extemely long range weapons that can fire on ships up to one grid square away so you would have ships entering combat from a square away

EDIT:This is bit hard to explain. Have ships order to send for reinforcements if you order them to-only in tactical screen-and you can choose from a list of ships in the sector to respond but any ship that responds loses its next turn

[ July 29, 2004, 21:08: Message edited by: Colonel ]

Antonin

July 29th, 2004, 10:05 PM

Originally posted by Shane Watson:
Also, on another point and something that fills me with cold, cold fear:

ABSOLUTELY NO STORYLINES. I don't need the game to think for me or to provide some hack reason for getting my peopel out into space. WHY game companies have thought that this is a good idea I will never understand, but it totally destroys the appeal of the game for me, not to mention the replayability.

Cheers,
~S I want to second this in the strongest possible terms. PLEASE PLEASE pretty please, Aaron, no story lines and NO "MISSIONS."

Please!

Shane Watson

July 29th, 2004, 10:17 PM

...further thoughts
(I spend way too much time thinking about this stuff...)

 Communication lag times. This falls under the Space is HUGE Category again. I'd like to see a multi turn delay between the time that an order is issued and it being executed based on how far out a ship/fleet/planet is. If it's off the main communication lines, it could take some time before the communication beam gets to it's destination. Something like 1 turn for every 5 lightyears the recieving vessel is outside the the communications Umbrella. If a ship is lost when it is outside the communications umbrella, you don't ever really know what happened to it unless it was able to beam something back before it was obliterated. If you lose a lot of ships in deep space/alien territories, this could be really frightening because you wont know who is offing your vessels. Emperor as a character with POV. The emperor/player should be something a little more than just an omnipresent force behind the empire. Make them a character that is actually in the game and can move around from planet to planet. Wherever the player is, the Center of the Empire is. Kind of like when Shadam IV went to Dune. Dune became the center of the Empire for the duration. The obvious downside to this is that if you happen to be at the wrong place at the wrong time, like Shaddam, you can get killed and your empire defaults to the next in line (which, incidently would allow the player to continue playing, but as a new ruling character).
And yes, you can count on more later http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[EDIT] I should clarify about communication umbrellas briefly: Anything with communications ability would have a communications umbrella. "instantanious" communication, like what we see ingame right now, would only be possible where these umbrellas overlap.
[\EDIT]

Cheers,
~Shane

[ July 29, 2004, 21:22: Message edited by: Shane Watson ]

Colonel

July 30th, 2004, 01:37 AM

I like that communications idea but i would make it so no tech could make instantoeus communications.

Instead you would need a communications grid
Communications sateilites-build them and each one would have a certian range, so you could have instant communications if you had satelites near them--------one thing what about combat for a ship outside the communications range.

July 30th, 2004, 01:49 AM

1.) No hard-coded limits for units in space, ships, systems and number of races. I frequently reach the limit of 20000 units in space in SE IV.
Of course recommended upper limits can and should be given. Then nobody can complain when the game crashes with 10000 systems!
2.) At least an option to keep tactical combat turn based. I don't understand what the real-time combat will add to the game and how you command 10 or more ships in a real-time combat. However I choose tactical combat when I want to study in detail and with all the time needed the possibilities of a certain combat situation. I don't see how I could to this in real-time.

[ July 29, 2004, 12:50: Message edited by: Q ]

Fyron

July 30th, 2004, 02:14 AM

All it would take would be communications satellites on each side of a warp point (ie. wormhole) to get instantaneous communication between systems.

[ July 30, 2004, 01:14: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Colonel

July 30th, 2004, 02:38 AM

my Last idea sort of went with the idea of getting rid of wormholes connecting sectors and just haveing open space between sectors so maybe one sectors has a star and planets then a few sectors of open space then another sector with planets

and haveing wormholes very rare and hard to detect (needing advanced tech) and they would connect far reachs of galaxy\map

[ July 30, 2004, 01:39: Message edited by: Colonel ]

Fyron

July 30th, 2004, 03:09 AM

Warp points are probably here to stay... they are one of the defining aspects of the Space Empires series. There may or may not be an alternative method to travel between the stars without the use of warp points in SE5, who knows.

Shane Watson

July 30th, 2004, 03:14 AM

I am rather hoping that the whole Warp Point concept is ditched, with the exception of perhaps Star Gate type technology (ala Babylon 5).

With respect to Aaron, I personally feel that the Warp Points have been a major detractor from the game, and are not even remotely realistic. Perhaps I'm in the minority here, but I want to be able to send my ships to whatever system I want without having to shunt through 30 dozen other territories before I get someplace. It's terribly annoying.

Colonel, you've pretty well got what I'm talking about for the communications lag. Communication networks would be needed, *and* would become strategic targets as well.

[SIDE NOTE on items built in deep space (space beyond the Oort Cloud or boundery of a solorsystem - a ship, planet or satelite would be in effect impossible to find. Think of it this way, during WWII, Japan effectively hid their ENTIRE Pacific fleet in the middle of the ocean, an are large enough to drop all of Asia into. The US was frantic to find it, but couldn't. The end result was Pearl Harbor.) This also goes under the Space Is HUGE Category http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ]

That said, while Deep Space items would be almost impossible to find, there would be a sliver of a chance that they *could* be found. The US *could have* found the Japanese Fleet.

As far battles outside the communications umbrella, only a recording would be available assuming anything survives the engagement.

This of course will not be popular with the realtime battle crowed, but it is much more realistic. Even with our battlefield communications today, ultimately, you have to trust your people in field to do their jobs when they are in the thick of it.

My whole purpose for this sort of thing is I want a realistic, unbelievably TENSE game. You don't ever have full control. You can nudge and push, but ultimately, it's out of your hands http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Colonel

July 30th, 2004, 03:33 AM

Two ideas haveing to do with Mines,

One, is it just me but shouldnt mines hit enemy ships even after peace is declared i mean you dont see mines on earth not blow up after peace is declared, of course this could be solved by a mine computer to deactivate it but anyway
Two with the idea of getting rid of mass wormholes how about multi squared mine fields. So outside your orginal solor system you could put a mine field of X number of mines around and the more mines you have the better the chance of hitting enemy ships so if you had one mine in a huge are chances are you wont hit the ship but if you have 100 you most likely you would hit it

EDIT:this is not really an idea just a thought, how about multiple Empires colinizeing the same planet, so in some cases if war broke out you would have troops from everyone trying to take out the other Groups

[ July 30, 2004, 02:40: Message edited by: Colonel ]

Fyron

July 30th, 2004, 03:38 AM

Yup, I designed the facilities for SE IV [Big Grin] Zuh?

Colonel

July 30th, 2004, 03:57 AM

You should be able to get Non agression pact without the AI swarmming your terroitory so i guess you should be able to say were not fighting but you cant come into my terriotory

[ July 30, 2004, 02:58: Message edited by: Colonel ]

Renegade 13

July 30th, 2004, 04:18 AM

I have to agree with Fyron here, the warp point idea is a defining aspect of the SE series. Were they to go, I don't think the game would be near as easy, or quite as fun to play. Complexity is good, but some ideas would be a micro-management hell if you were playing. Its supposed to be a game, not a simulation...we can't have everything even remotely realistic. No matter how much we may want total realism.

Colonel

July 30th, 2004, 04:32 AM

with the idea of getting rid of warp points i wasnt suggest getting rid of them completely just not connecting every sector together but they connect far sides of the map this isnt for realism is just for eas of movement

Baron Munchausen

July 30th, 2004, 04:44 AM

Antonin

July 30th, 2004, 04:45 AM

Originally posted by Colonel:
You should be able to get Non agression pact without the AI swarmming your terroitory so i guess you should be able to say were not fighting but you cant come into my terriotory I think the AI should be changed so that AI players do not send forces into your space unless a treaty specifically allows it. I get very tired of AI empires sending military vessels throughout my space just because we have a trade agreement.

I also get tired of AI empires that park 20 light cruisers over my home planet.

Baron Munchausen

July 30th, 2004, 04:50 AM

I have to agree that "Warp Points" are just about the single most important and defining characteristic of the SE series. It wouldn't be Space Empires anymore if you removed them. That said, I have lobbied Aaron myself for additional methods of interstellar travel. Warp Gates for example -- buildable devices controled by players instead of just 'natural features' that you can only create or destroy. You could control who uses a warp gate, such as only allowing your own ships or your allies to use it. And some sort of 'direct' or 'off road' method of travel is needed. I prefer 'sleeper ships' where the crew actually has to be put into some sort of hibernation and it takes years to get from one system to another. It'd be really cool to play the occasional 'lotech' game with no FTL at all, even if it would take ages to play. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif A 'hyperspace' system like we see in Babylon 5 would also be nice, though.

Colonel

July 30th, 2004, 05:06 AM

i know getting rid of warp points would change the game but it would add alot to the game for what ever it took out, if only there were a way to make it moddable like a choice before the game......... but for this that is mightbe to hard so i guess its either in the game or not

Suicide Junkie

July 30th, 2004, 05:24 AM

This of course will not be popular with the realtime battle crowed, but it is much more realistic. Even with our battlefield communications today, ultimately, you have to trust your people in field to do their jobs when they are in the thick of it. What are you talking about??
Real time vs turn based strategic combat has nothing to do with how much control you have, only the quality of the simulated results.

No matter what system you use, the AI is still playing the whole combat with only the fleet formation/strategy to guide it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

---

As for making it a tense game, having MORE control helps that.
Having the fate of your ship rest on your moment-to-moment decisions during tactical combat is tense and exciting, especially if you are outgunned, outnumbered and desperate to win with a major colony/base/chokepoint at stake.

At the empire level, you're just throwing massive fleets around, and combat becomes impersonal, detached.

---

The only disadvantage to real time strategic combat is the amount of CPU time it will take for PBW to grind through it.

You probably won't even notice the difference in a multiplayer game.

Kana

July 30th, 2004, 03:08 PM

Since we are on the subject of Warp Points. I'm sure someone has suggested this...but here it is again...

The Detecting of WP is a good idea. All warp points should be hidden unless you can detect them. Some Warp Points could be one way Warp Points. You can come out of them...but can't go back the way you came. Different size Warp Points, that allow only certain tonnage amount of ships through. (Alot of StarFire feel here)

Ok my 2 cents is over...

Kana

Shane Watson

July 30th, 2004, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Yup, I designed the facilities for SE IV [Big Grin] Zuh? <hr /></blockquote>Open Space Empires IV and read the credits http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif They were cheesy, but I am proud of 'em. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif It was a lot of fun too. I had wanted to get some ship sets in there as well, along with some other stuff, but I had an old computer at the the time and the bloody thing crashed on me and it was a while before I was able to get things back up and running. Eh, such is life haha.

[ July 30, 2004, 14:25: Message edited by: Shane Watson ]

Shane Watson

July 30th, 2004, 03:35 PM

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
I have to agree that "Warp Points" are just about the single most important and defining characteristic of the SE series. It wouldn't be Space Empires anymore if you removed them. That said, I have lobbied Aaron myself for additional methods of interstellar travel. Warp Gates for example -- buildable devices controled by players instead of just 'natural features' that you can only create or destroy. You could control who uses a warp gate, such as only allowing your own ships or your allies to use it. And some sort of 'direct' or 'off road' method of travel is needed. I prefer 'sleeper ships' where the crew actually has to be put into some sort of hibernation and it takes years to get from one system to another. It'd be really cool to play the occasional 'lotech' game with no FTL at all, even if it would take ages to play. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif A 'hyperspace' system like we see in Babylon 5 would also be nice, though. I totally admit that I'm anti-wormhole. But I'm willing to make concessions to the pro-wormhole crowed (mostly cause I'm hopelessly outnumbered haha) - Seriously, I think the ideas that you are kicking around here are cool.

I have to agree that "Warp Points" are just about the single most important and defining characteristic of the SE series. It wouldn't be Space Empires anymore if you removed them.I don't know about that. What was that real time game out a few years ago that used warp points? I played it a lot there for while, but I don't recall what it was... WP's didn't define that game. But it had them.

I think Space Empire's single most important and defining feature is it's ability to be customized. Not only is it fun because of that, but it also appeals to a broader consumer base. Don't like the game? Change it.

I think the thing that bothers the most about the WP's is that fundamentally I percieve them as a limit on the game. They limit game play for me, while everything else is essentially wide open. That's what troubles me about them and that is why I would like to see them either gone entirely (which I know and accept won't happen) or at least their role modified so as to be more manageable.

~S

[ July 30, 2004, 15:08: Message edited by: Shane Watson ]

Fyron

July 30th, 2004, 06:25 PM

Originally posted by Shane Watson:
Open Space Empires IV and read the credits http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif They were cheesy, but I am proud of 'em. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif It was a lot of fun too. I had wanted to get some ship sets in there as well, along with some other stuff, but I had an old computer at the the time and the bloody thing crashed on me and it was a while before I was able to get things back up and running. Eh, such is life haha. It is not too late to make more graphics for SE4. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif You could always submit stuff to the Image Mod (http://imagemod.spaceempires.net/).

Gozra

July 30th, 2004, 06:43 PM

Pax Imperium pretty good game but it can move very fast.
And if you use map creator you can make oneway warp points.

AMF

July 30th, 2004, 07:20 PM

Perhaps this has been mentioned before, but I would like to see penalties/bonuses/restrictions based upon gravity (size) of planets. For example, as a human-like race, I should be unable to colonize heavy-G planets and maybe get a cost penalty when building on light-G planets. Or some variation thereof.

There should be techs that would allows colonization of them ("high-G construction," etc...).

In this same vein, certain racial characteristics should make it very difficult or easier to colonize higher or lower G places. If I was a space-born race, I should have significant penalties to exist on a high-G planet.

There could be various permutations herein.

I also feel that with a wider variety of planet types colonization should follow similar themes. For example, I would like to see "water-worlds" or "desert-worlds" and other similar combinations added to the rock-gas-ice paradigm.

Then, if I played a Cetacean water-borne race, then I would get bonuses (or no penalties) to colonize a water-world, and so forth.

I guess these could be similar in theory to the progression of colonization techs currently in place, but with wider variety - which would be nifty, more flavour added to the game, but with little or no added complexity.

Just my thoughts.

Thnaks,

Alarik

Loser

July 30th, 2004, 07:24 PM

Props to the artist. I hope you are willing to continue to contribute to the family, as the Facilities define a good deal of the flavor of the game.

Back on topic, I'd like to see more additive and subtractive attributes for Components and Facilities. Things like Happiness Cloaking (all types) Conditions modifiers Value Modifiers Anything else that currently only takes the best valueOf course, I'd also like more hotkeys. I want to be able to play the game using only the keyboard.

Gozra

July 30th, 2004, 08:55 PM

I like all these neat Ideas but at what point does complexity overcome playablity? I only know of a few players that handle high levels complexity well and I think most enjoy focusing on one or two aspects of the game. (diplomacy, research, Ship design, Economic expansion, Combat) My self I really like the little tactics you can come up with like putting mines with spy sats.
One thing which would be nice in a standard game is the final level of any tech be darned expensive so that if you do get that tech it gives you an advantage for 20- or so turns. I am thinking about cloaking tech. I do understand that this is easily modded.

Loser

July 30th, 2004, 11:40 PM

I would like to see all the ocmplexity that could possibly be presented made avilable to modders. That's what I was requesting, really.

Except for the hotkeys, I would like to see that functionality in the standard game. Of course, I wouldn't want hotkey usage to be necessary to gameplay, I respect the needs of those who cannot transcend the mouse.

Shane Watson

July 31st, 2004, 12:10 AM

Originally posted by Loser:
[QB] Props to the artist. I hope you are willing to continue to contribute to the family, as the Facilities define a good deal of the flavor of the game.Thanks! Aaron and I are actually talking about the *possibility* of me doing some detailed race portraits for the game since I don't really do any 3d modeling anymore. I've always been a 2d artist - and the guys doing 3d work these days make me look really bad haha
--
I really like the idea of Planetary Classifications beyond Asteroid, Gas Giant, Rocky World, Ice World.

I think it would be a nice addition to some extended planetary stats (grav, hydrographic, size (km or miles) and A.U. among other things.

As far as complexity overcoming gameplay - the easy way around this is to allow for fairly complex game mechanics that can be turned off and on in the Empire options of each player or handled by the player's government. It doesn't *have* to be micromanagement hell unless you want it to be.

Cheers,
~Shane

Loser

July 31st, 2004, 12:19 AM

Mr. Watson?
*waits for eye contact*
Right this way, please. (http://www.shrapnelgames.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=012205)

Renegade 13

July 31st, 2004, 01:22 AM

One thing in SEV I'd absolutely love is something that other people have suggested previously: Very detailed planetary/solar descriptions. For example:

Name: Sol III
Gravity: 1.00 standard G's
Atmospheric Composition: 74% Nitrogen, 22% Oxygen, 3% Carbon Dioxide, 1% Other gases
Planetary Conditions: Optimal
Planetary Surface: 77% Water, 17% Landmass, 6% Polar Ice Caps

...and so on, and so on. These wouldn't necessarily even affect how your race is able to thrive (or not) on the planet, or use it for resources, but it would add a lot of realism and its just plain more interesting that way!

Suicide Junkie

July 31st, 2004, 01:38 AM

Originally posted by Gozra:
I like all these neat Ideas but at what point does complexity overcome playablity? You don't have to worry if you have incredible complexity built in, but then have the stock game trivialize or restrict away many of the options.

So when you make a mod, you can pick and choose which of the complexities to include in order to get the appropriate feel.

[ July 31, 2004, 00:39: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ]

Gozra

July 31st, 2004, 01:52 AM

I would stick to warp points. But I would make a new technology tree for warp point detection. You would have Class 1,2,3,4,5 warp points. Systems can have varying amounts of diffrent class warp points. Plus I would make is so you can only make 1 or 2 classes of warp points. this will make natural back doors for raiding and such and if you are able to find this tech in alien ruins it will make for a more fluid game and you don't have to make major changes to the look and feel of the game.

Paul1980au

July 31st, 2004, 08:48 AM

Any new additions to planetary descriptions and data - lets make them only included if they related some way to the actual game - ie growth rate - resource generation etc.

Shane Watson

July 31st, 2004, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by Paul1980au:
Any new additions to planetary descriptions and data - lets make them only included if they related some way to the actual game - ie growth rate - resource generation etc. Pretty much any physical data concerning planetary data could easily be tied directly to game play.

Just for example:

Star type and A.U. will determine how much radiation a race can naturally withstand.

Planetary size and density will determine directly how much gravity the planet has and what the upper reaches are for a race colonizing higher g worlds.

Atmosphere: Like currrent game: if you can't breath it you need a dome

Hydrographics: How wet is the race's homeworld? A species from a world with high hydrographics really won't do well on dryer worlds, and vice versa.

Biozone (the distance from a star where liquid water is present) will determine how hot or cold the planet is. Mars is a cold desert, Venus is a hot desert. Both could potentially have a certain amount of liquid water then life under different circumstance.

Races will naturally look for planets that are close to their ideal, however they would be very few and far between, which would limit to a certain extent the organic output.

Eh. You get the idea.

Cheers,

[ July 31, 2004, 13:54: Message edited by: Shane Watson ]

Fyron

July 31st, 2004, 04:45 PM

Shane Watson

July 31st, 2004, 05:39 PM

I think that is a bad idea. What is wrong with flavor text? The descriptions that planets, components, facilities, etc. currently have have no bearing on the game. Extra details make the game more immersive and provide a deeper gaming experience. Not every detail has to affect a game mechanic in some way. [/QB]The main problem with flavor text that I have is that it is exactly the same today as it was when I first got my copy of SEIV.

With randomly generated stats, you get endless variety and interest that could potentially directly affect game play.

Cheers,

[ July 31, 2004, 16:40: Message edited by: Shane Watson ]

Fyron

July 31st, 2004, 06:24 PM

The randomly generated stats that have no effect (there are already a number of these, such as for stars) are flavor text.

Colonel

August 1st, 2004, 06:15 AM

these go with the ideas of getting rid of warp points connecting everywhere and communications satelites\lines of communication.

Communications between two races should be more diffcult, espically early on. Before you have satelites comm grid, you should maybe have to send messeges on a ship from your homeworld. Which brings up the possiblity of Pirate Raiders, or enemies attacking and preventing communication.

Next Two ideas have to do with Wormholes: One wormhole creators should cost alot more, and take more of an investment.
And, People have being discussing a sort of moveable and human built fake wormhole, gate type thing, going with that it should one limit off amount of ships per turn turn going threw, and they should be realyy cheap but take LARGE specialty transport ships to move them, so you couldnt just send off a bunch of little ships in any direction and have them everywhere

WOW this thread is long WOW

[ August 01, 2004, 05:20: Message edited by: Colonel ]

Phoenix-D

August 1st, 2004, 06:37 AM

I don't like the idea of getting rid of warp points, or of com lag. You already have a minimum com lag of one month.

Orders lag either; it would add too much micromanagement. Ministers are not feasable; the AI is too stupid and is likely to remain that way. Besides, I play SE4 to command, not to manage the egos of idiot savants.

At the very least it should be moddable so those that want it off can turn it off.

Wizarc

August 1st, 2004, 08:35 AM

Each race has one special ship class. You would get this after you researched the correct tech areas. You can only have one of these ships in your empire. It has special bonuses and gives ships in the fleet it is in bonuses, etc.

This would give a sort of RPG feel and you would of course need to protect it because you can only have one.

Paul1980au

August 1st, 2004, 10:04 AM

Dont think that i quite clarified my self - when i said make stats etc specific to game impact i was referring to new data types that are being suggested - of course leave the text stats etc to describe planets etc. Growth rate etc are preexisting - i meant AU - radiation exposure etc. New types not previously used.

Colonel

August 1st, 2004, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
I don't like the idea of getting rid of warp points, or of com lag. You already have a minimum com lag of one month.

Orders lag either; it would add too much micromanagement.
At the very least it should be moddable so those that want it off can turn it off. After you had devolped the right techs and built communications things you wouldnt need to worry, as for yhe moddable part--Everything should be moddable

Shane Watson

August 1st, 2004, 04:59 PM

quick note on ship classes and ships in general:

I personally feel that a good chunk of the ship building process should be overhauled some. I do like the idea of being able to add in different componants etc., but I think that it would be a tad more interesting to have the size of a ship/class (ie 150ton escort) *not* based on tech level. Ships should be built to whatever size you want and classed how you want (If I happen to want to have a 10 million ton behemouth scout, then dag-nabbit, I *want* one!)

Now here is where the technology would come in:
Engines/propulsion systems should take up a percentage of the ship's mass based on size of the vessle and tech level attained. The higher technology, the smaller the percentage.

So, for example, at low techs, engines and fuel storage could take up to 50-75% of the ship's mass (for the sake of argument),probably less, which in effect doesn't leave much room for onboard ship systems, including crew.

This leaves players a couple of choice - research better, more compact engines/feul storage or work on miniturizing ship systems and possibly leaving crew out (assuming we're using crew...).

I'd also like to see something along the lines of a power plant included in the ship componants. This would take up about 5-10% of the ship's mass, reducing with higher techs. This would be the primary power source of the vessel. Right now I guess it's assumed that it is the engines... But if that is lost, the ship is derilect until it can be repaired. Also runs a chance of overloading during combat. Greater chance at lower techs, to a final 1% chance at higher techs.

~Cheers,

Suicide Junkie

August 1st, 2004, 05:15 PM

Ships should be built to whatever size you want and classed how you want (If I happen to want to have a 10 million ton behemouth scout, then dag-nabbit, I *want* one!)And just because you want to build a 10 million story tower dosen't mean you can at our current technology level, no matter how much money you have.
You have to do the research to figure out HOW, then you can. If you want to start out running around with battlemoons, that's what a high tech start is for.

---

There are many QNP mods out for SE4, which do as you suggest. I usually design my P&N (http://www.geocities.com/hohoho611ca/pirates.html) warships in the 25%-35% range, though, and load up on shields and armor. That's just me, though... my brother goes all out on weapons, and my Dad likes to go up into the 50% engines range.

[ August 01, 2004, 16:17: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ]

Colonel

August 1st, 2004, 05:35 PM

if i understand your idea of percent of ship taken by each thing right then i would say no i like the current system of componets but i have one minor thing to the componets, they should be inter changeable so if you capture a ship you should be able to take something on that one and put it into another ship

Shane Watson

August 1st, 2004, 05:43 PM

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
[QB] <blockquote>quote:<hr />Ships should be built to whatever size you want and classed how you want (If I happen to want to have a 10 million ton behemouth scout, then dag-nabbit, I *want* one!)And just because you want to build a 10 million story tower dosen't mean you can at our current technology level, no matter how much money you have.
You have to do the research to figure out HOW, then you can. If you want to start out running around with battlemoons, that's what a high tech start is for.<hr /></blockquote>Tower vs. Ship.

Tower is planet based. You are fighting gravity and wind sheer.

Ship is orbital. 10 million tons, incidently, isn't even as large as a current day air craft carrier.

My point is that yes, you *can* (or at least *should*) be able to if you want to spend the amount of time and money and resources and manpower it takes to put something like that together, but it won't be terribly effective.

I *do* concede a partial point to you on the engineering note. Perhaps this could be overcome by the larger the ship and the lower the technology the more problems it inherently has.

On the other hand, lower techs usually use larger things. They don't have the finess of higher technology. I keep thinking of the basement sized computers that couldn't do a smidgeon of what my wife's laptop can do that my father-in-law worked on when he was starting out in the aerospace industry.

Cheers,

Bill Door

August 1st, 2004, 05:45 PM

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Ships should be built to whatever size you want and classed how you want (If I happen to want to have a 10 million ton behemouth scout, then dag-nabbit, I *want* one!)And just because you want to build a 10 million story tower dosen't mean you can at our current technology level, no matter how much money you have.
You have to do the research to figure out HOW, then you can. If you want to start out running around with battlemoons, that's what a high tech start is for.<hr /></blockquote>Except this is space. There are few major forces on the structure, with the most notable being the thrust from the engines

This means that the ship construction technology could be used to determine maximum thrust levels and hence, under the QNP system, speed .

Also, higher levels of ship construction could create ships that can take greater damage since they have a tougher structure.

Shane Watson

August 1st, 2004, 05:46 PM

Originally posted by Colonel:
if i understand your idea of percent of ship taken by each thing right then i would say no i like the current system of componets but i have one minor thing to the componets, they should be inter changeable so if you capture a ship you should be able to take something on that one and put it into another ship My idea is just based on what we have to deal with in real life. the larger the ship, the larger the engine and more fuel we need. The basic concept is the same from a speed boat to a cruise liner. If you don't have the umph to go, you stay in port.

However, the way the game is currently set, is the same 10 ton engine can propell the smallest to the largest ships. It just doesn't make sense to me.

Cheers,

Colonel

August 1st, 2004, 06:23 PM

Well yes you are somewhat right on the low tech engines but the more advanced engines it could be explained that it is so advanced that it doesnt need to be big----My idea is a sort of half way between idea--- For smaller ships early on you would need less engine componets to make it go faster and the bigger it is the more engines it needs but as you get more advanced you need the same amount of engines for both due to advanced tech in engines---

Phoenix-D

August 1st, 2004, 06:45 PM

10 million tons is a hell of a lot bigger than a current aircraft carrier. Those generally get into the 90 KILO ton range at max- several orders of magnitude smaller. (even the SE4 escort is bigger)

Just because you can slap together that much material doesn't mean you could make it move, either. Place the engines wrong and it would rip itself apart..

Colonel

August 1st, 2004, 06:50 PM

This was in a mod but I thought it was a good idea and should be in SEV, You should be able to make weapons take up less space but still hold attack values, but this would increase the cost of building ships

Baron Munchausen

August 1st, 2004, 07:42 PM

Originally posted by Shane Watson:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
[QB] <blockquote>quote:<hr />Ships should be built to whatever size you want and classed how you want (If I happen to want to have a 10 million ton behemouth scout, then dag-nabbit, I *want* one!)And just because you want to build a 10 million story tower dosen't mean you can at our current technology level, no matter how much money you have.
You have to do the research to figure out HOW, then you can. If you want to start out running around with battlemoons, that's what a high tech start is for.<hr /></blockquote>Tower vs. Ship.

Tower is planet based. You are fighting gravity and wind sheer.

Ship is orbital. 10 million tons, incidently, isn't even as large as a current day air craft carrier.

My point is that yes, you *can* (or at least *should*) be able to if you want to spend the amount of time and money and resources and manpower it takes to put something like that together, but it won't be terribly effective.

I *do* concede a partial point to you on the engineering note. Perhaps this could be overcome by the larger the ship and the lower the technology the more problems it inherently has.

On the other hand, lower techs usually use larger things. They don't have the finess of higher technology. I keep thinking of the basement sized computers that couldn't do a smidgeon of what my wife's laptop can do that my father-in-law worked on when he was starting out in the aerospace industry.

Cheers, <hr /></blockquote>The Nimitz class carriers run up to around 100,000 (thousand, not million) tons when fully loaded. The largest things afloat are the 'super tankers' that run between off-shore terminals and can't even come into port. They get to about 1.5 million tons Last I heard.

But building a large structure in space still requires engineering for stresses and pressures. Especially if it is going to be a moving structure. The engines have to 'push' on something or other to make the thing move, and it has to hold together when they do. Not to mention resisting damage from enemy weapons.

That said, I agree that a more flexible style of 'engineering' is needed for SE ship design. The current fixed 'tonnage' for every ship regardless of what is really installed just doesn't make sense. We need to see real costs/benefits from altering the engine power/mass ratio of our ships. The idea of ship classes as rigid 'containers' needs to be dumped.

I still think a series of hull size classes should dictate the relative building costs (scaled by your construction/materials technology level) according to how big the final design really is. BUT... we should not go 'choosing the size' before we do anything else and then be forced to 'choose the size' again if we want to add more equipment than will fit into the rigid size we chose before. We should be able to just add equipment to the design and let the game track how big it's getting. As it crosses 'levels' of construction size, the cost gets re-calculated to reflect our ability to handle the scale. And if it looks too costly you scale back to a smaller size -- by removing equipment, not by 'choosing the hull size' again.

[ August 01, 2004, 18:44: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Kana

August 1st, 2004, 08:13 PM

If you are basing things on Size, and there is no size requirement or max, then there would have to be a cost for the basic frame of the ship. This is already in SE4, but we are limited by the size class. But to prevent people from just making these big mammoth scouts, is to make it much more expensive to by the frame, plus not to mention the engines need to move something that size. Alot cheaper to have a 100 ton scout than a 1M ton scout. And maintance...whoa we wont even go into that...

Kana

Colonel

August 1st, 2004, 08:38 PM

why not do what they did in some mods make three or so sizes for each ship size--- So Light Escort, Escort, Heavy Escort, they somewhat did this with crusiers in SEIV light, normal, Battle

or this, Have Size Range for each ship so you could have anywhere between 100-200 Kilotons for an escort and you would define in game what you wanted it to be and you would name the size you created

So you could build a 123kt escort
------------------------------------------------

Should split up the Intel Projects into two sections, Offensive and defensive.

You should have to do specfic counter intel projects, so maybe intel recon to discover what the enemy are doing then have to launch a counter intel against that project, so if the enemy was setting up a puppet goverment you would have to assainate there puppet leader and maybe garrison the planet with troops and ship

[ August 01, 2004, 21:20: Message edited by: Colonel ]

Shane Watson

August 1st, 2004, 11:35 PM

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
10 million tons is a hell of a lot bigger than a current aircraft carrier. Those generally get into the 90 KILO ton range at max- several orders of magnitude smaller. (even the SE4 escort is biggerI stand corrected and apologize. Was thinking 100's of thousands of tons, and typed millions in my pre-coffee haze this morning.

actual size of the USS Nimitz, by way of reference, is approximately 97000 tons, as per your post.

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

Shane Watson

August 1st, 2004, 11:39 PM

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
But building a large structure in space still requires engineering for stresses and pressures. Especially if it is going to be a moving structure. The engines have to 'push' on something or other to make the thing move, and it has to hold together when they do. Not to mention resisting damage from enemy weapons.

That said, I agree that a more flexible style of 'engineering' is needed for SE ship design. The current fixed 'tonnage' for every ship regardless of what is really installed just doesn't make sense. We need to see real costs/benefits from altering the engine power/mass ratio of our ships. The idea of ship classes as rigid 'containers' needs to be dumped.

I still think a series of hull size classes should dictate the relative building costs (scaled by your construction/materials technology level) according to how big the final design really is. BUT... we should not go 'choosing the size' before we do anything else and then be forced to 'choose the size' again if we want to add more equipment than will fit into the rigid size we chose before. We should be able to just add equipment to the design and let the game track how big it's getting. As it crosses 'levels' of construction size, the cost gets re-calculated to reflect our ability to handle the scale. And if it looks too costly you scale back to a smaller size -- by removing equipment, not by 'choosing the hull size' again. [/QB]There's a reason that I'm an artist and not an engineer or programmer haha.

I dig your ideas. I think something like that would work very well and be a lot of fun to noodle as well.

Cheers,

Greybeard

August 2nd, 2004, 01:13 AM

One thing that really makes colonization difficult is the change of the "planet status" from colonized to available if you move your ship out of a system. I would like the planet status to remain the same as the Last time I "saw" the system. However, this would probably take significant programming or large player files.

Another option would be to show that the "unseen" planet is colonized but without the designation of who owns it to avoid giving away information on conquests. That way I could plan my colonization without sending ships to planets that are already claimed.

Colonel

August 2nd, 2004, 02:44 AM

Someone suggested something like this before but i wish to refine the idea, Limiting larger ships, You should be able to pick a design type of Capital Ship and you would only be allowed 3 of this design, and you would need a certian population in order to get this size ship, but this ship shouldnt have any limits like only 2 engines for it or something like that, and if you lost one you couldnt rebuild it, it would lost---This would give greater importance to Fleets and protecting Larger ships because they are more of an investment

Timstone

August 3rd, 2004, 10:47 AM

- I would like to see weapons with splash (area) damage.
- The possibility to give and equation to determine weapon damage (that way you can include various parameters into the damage (ship size, distance from target, etc.)).
- The possibility to let a weapon fire more than one "beam". That way you can damage a whole lot of ships at once.
- In conjunction to the first and third wish; weapons that can affect more than one ship (like creating a gravity hole in the center of an enemy fleet).
- More room for pics (and larger pics).
- And of course the possibility of adding animations into the space for the pics, maybe in gif-format.

[ August 03, 2004, 09:49: Message edited by: Timstone ]

tesco samoa

August 3rd, 2004, 08:38 PM

http://www.tescosamoa.com/racetosev/viewtopic.php?t=12

the heavy hitter himself is wishing some good luck...

AMF

August 3rd, 2004, 08:42 PM

Hey, I was thinking about this Non-Warp Hole movement idea. It would be excellent to have STL travel for ships, and I don't see any real reason why it can't be implemented as long as you make one assumption:notably that you can only issue orders to ships or communicate with them when they are at a location with warp points.

If you make that assumption, then the rest of the pieces are already there in SE4 pretty much.

The main obstacle is a line-of-sight distance determinination for traveling between stars - and it is already resident in SE4 used for opening WPs to a distant star.

The other stuff that you would need - how far apart stars are, the assumption that stars are on a 2D space, and so forth are present too.

All you would need to add to SE5 to allow such star-to-star non-WP travel is a separate ship screen, or a highlighting for ships in the current screen, that displays ships in "deep space" or as "enroute between stars" or "out of communication" and they would simply be that way until they arrived at their destination - then you could give them new orders.

You might have to also assume that ships in "deep space" don't need or get maintenance - but they're on autopilot, with their crews in deep sleep anyways, so that's not a stretch to me.

Now, when sending your ships into deep space you'd want to give them LOTS of supplies so they can make it there, but that's part of the game.

We can also calculate how long it would take to get from one star to the distant star by using the current movement system - we know that a standard SE4 Ion drive powered ship can cross a typical solar system in two months, and we can carry that out to calculate how long it would take such a ship to travel 10, 50 or 100 LY, right? It might take years in game time, but, it would still be a very cool addition to the game.

RE:

Originally posted by Timstone:
- The possibility to give and equation to determine weapon damage (that way you can include various parameters into the damage (ship size, distance from target, etc.)).
I think this has already been dedicated as going to be in SEV. At least that's the gist of a conversation that occurred in the SE4 thread on Yahoo Groups. The other stuff, not sure,

Baron Munchausen

August 3rd, 2004, 09:34 PM

The speed you calculate for crossing a solar system (system map) is the average though. Ships have to accelerate and then slow down when they get close to their destination even if their destination is other ships. Combat is assumed to occur at similar speeds. Assuming that the SE system map is about the size of our own solar system (the orbit of Pluto) and a 'turn' is similar to our month in length gives an average speed of a few percent of the speed of light. Not bad, really. ONE percent of the speed of light is 1860 miles per second -- many, many times faster than anything humans have ever launched to date. So, what if these ships just kept on accelerating for a long time instead of slowing down again? It seems reasonable to assume that they could get close to the speed of light. Certainly much closer than anything we are currently able to build. So you could conceivably have travel between nearby stars in a few years of game time. Not too unmanageable.

[ August 03, 2004, 20:39: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Colonel

August 3rd, 2004, 10:59 PM

few years of game time?!?!?!?! why not just have it so you can see the uninhabited systems in between and control them there tooooooooo

[ August 04, 2004, 02:30: Message edited by: Colonel ]

Puke

August 4th, 2004, 12:10 AM

still think a series of hull size classes should dictate the relative building costs (scaled by your construction/materials technology level) according to how big the final design really isWow, I really like this one. This idea should be 'bumped' by more people.

basically, you dont have to choose your hull size, but the cost of building larger things might exponentially increase as size goes up. increased levels of ship construction would afford you a more generous formula for cost / mass ratio.

furthermore, speed of a ship is calculated dynamically by thrust vs mass. engine technology provides greater thrust, and ships can be ANY mass.

AMF

August 4th, 2004, 03:41 AM

Well, ideally such ideas could be implemented as "settings" - SOME people like the long games - and you could even have settings that would allows you to turn off warp points, and only use STL travel, or the reverse (which is standard now) or both. The key here is that STL travel is largely implementable and certainly can complement the current system.

Originally posted by Colonel:
few years of game time?!?!?!?! why not just have it so you can see the uninhabited systems in between and control them there tooooooooo

Colonel

August 5th, 2004, 02:08 AM

Originally posted by alarikf:
[QB] Well, ideally such ideas could be implemented as "settings" - SOME people like the long games - and you could even have settings that would allows you to turn off warp points, and only use STL travel, or the reverse (which is standard now) or both. The key here is that STL travel is largely implementable and certainly can complement the current system.
I would assume with a new game they are makeing a new system in which anything could be implamented

Spectarofdeath

August 7th, 2004, 02:08 AM

Does anybody have any clue when SEV is supposed to be released?

Ed Kolis

August 7th, 2004, 02:42 AM

Supposedly next summer...

Atrocities

August 8th, 2004, 04:17 AM

You should all note that any links to thread within SEIV forum are most likely bad now.

Randallw

August 8th, 2004, 06:20 AM

Can someone who knows explain this bit from Malfadors SE5 news?

"Now you can use formulas for all of those pesky ability amounts"

gosho mladenoff

August 8th, 2004, 03:00 PM

I don't know if this has been suggested before but i'd like to see a component having a % chance of being destroyed on use. cheap components could have a higher % while premium components have a lower % of being destroyed. Thus certain high energy weapons could explode in combat. also not all hyperdrive/warp components would burnout everytime their used.

ggm

Fyron

August 8th, 2004, 03:30 PM

Can someone who knows explain this bit from Malfadors SE5 news?

"Now you can use formulas for all of those pesky ability amounts"

Ever play Starfury? The data files will have a single entry for a component family. This single entry will have component level based values. It will look something like:

Weapon Type := Direct Fire
Weapon Target Type List := Ship, Base, Planet,
Fighter, Satellite, Drone
Weapon Damage Type := Normal
Weapon At Range Distance Increment := 10.0
Weapon Min Damage At Range := 15.0 10.0 5.0
0.0 0.0
Weapon Max Damage At Range := 20.0 15.0 10.0
5.0 0.0
Weapon To Hit Modifier At Range := -10.0 -20.0 -30.0
-40.0 -50.0
Weapon Min Damage Modifier Formula := [%ListedAmount%] +
(([%Level%]-1) * 0.5)
Weapon Max Damage Modifier Formula := [%ListedAmount%] +
(([%Level%]-1) * 0.5)

Timstone

August 8th, 2004, 03:31 PM

Woops, I forgot to ask for a moddable facility input. I mean that the modder can change the buildings that the computer puts on all planets at the start of the game.
Also, don't loose track of the legacy of SE. Keep it simple on the outside, but complex on the inside. It must be playable for noobs and entertaining for veterans.

Ed Kolis: I don't like your idea of more resources. SE always had three resources, let it stay that way. Don't make things too complex (KISS).

Techfreak: Woa, great idea about the headstart for the AI. I like it!

David E.: I'm curious. I really don't know it, so I'll just ask you. Do you know Aaron, or are you part of Malfador?
Damn, this question really makes me feel a noob. Like I never come at this oasis on the net. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/redface.gif

Edit: Okay, this IS STUPID!! I just found out that this post was partly a reply to one of the first Messages posted in this thread. Damn that reverse posting!!! I hate ti... Grr.... /threads/images/Graemlins/mad.gif

Loser

August 8th, 2004, 03:33 PM

I'd like to make components that require some sort of cargo on the ship in order to work, and then they can consume that cargo when they do their thing. After this, make specific cargos that act as supplies, or at least make this kind of compplication something we can mod in.

Oh, and Hotkeys. I want hotkeys for everything.

Fyron

August 8th, 2004, 03:33 PM

David E.: I'm curious. I really don't know it, so I'll just ask you. Do you know Aaron, or are you part of Malfador?
Damn, this question really makes me feel a noob. Like I never come at this oasis on the net. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/redface.gif

He made the interface and a lot of graphics for Dungeon Oddysey. I think he made some graphics for Starfury as well. He is currently working on interface graphics and other graphics for SEV. Closest thing to a second actual MM employee there is. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Colonel

August 8th, 2004, 08:12 PM

I think we should allow the neutrals to colinize the sectors directly connecting to there home sector, and allow there non clonizeing ships to go to all the sectors

This would give them more of a punch without being an Empire of there own right

Next this is a map editor request, if we have one could there be a way to put which neutrals where we want on the map, that would make editing maps easyer

Timstone

August 9th, 2004, 07:10 AM

Power Man

August 9th, 2004, 04:51 PM

I am reading "The Shiva Option" by David Weber and Steve White. It reminds me a lot of SE4 with systems connected with Warp Ponts, large fleets of ships and LOTS of space battles. I suggest anyone who likes SE4 will like this book.
One thing it has is Hidden Warp points. These points can only be found by careful scanning or Luck. One side can be taken by suprize by the enemy popping up from no were.
Could this be added into SE5? You could have a special scanning teck with different levels to see different levels of hidden warp points.
This might allow one to move ships to by-pass an enemies defences.

Paul1980au

August 9th, 2004, 06:04 PM

Thanks for that Last post - though it has been covered before in this thread lol - keep it coming i think we came up with randomly moving warp points (only stay put in 1 turn before turning up somewhere else)
The various levels of tech and of course the smaller points limiting ships below a certain size and scaling up on that point to.

Colonel

August 9th, 2004, 07:36 PM

This next one has to do with Commerece,

First we need some sort of standard monitary figure(Ex. Dollars, euros so on) that can be used to buy ships quickly or resourse from other empires, and anything else. Money\Commerece would be created by many things, Taxes from each of your Planets, You would be able to raise or lower the percent but higher levels would cause unhappiness. To represent Industry Tax you would get money from different types of buildings and there amount of use, So a mining colony on a planet that has a high mining value would devolpe more money then a mining colony on a planet with less mining value.

Next You could devolpe Commerece\money from tourism to different planets within your empire so if you had a planet devouted to Happniness building then you might get a large amount of money from that planet from commerece but there would be one thing that would apply to this, Location if you have a planet devouted to tourism and it is out away from all inhabited planets you would get little or no tourism money but a planet that is near your capital planet which would be well traveled would get a huge tourism commerce bonus

Anyone have any thoughts on this idea?

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Fyron

August 9th, 2004, 07:55 PM

FLX

August 9th, 2004, 08:29 PM

bearclaw

August 9th, 2004, 08:56 PM

what about Dis-Information Counter Intel projects. If you intercept an enemy Intel project, and you have the Dis-Info Counter Intel rather than standard Counter Intel, it gives you the option to "fill in the blanks" on the enemy project and send them back your false info. Unless they have sufficant Counter Intel (or perhaps automatic), they assume that their project was successful but end up with the wrong info.

Kana

August 9th, 2004, 11:34 PM

And how about the SE3 ship building style?
there, first you purchase a ship, and the next turn it appears with all of its components "destroyed" beeing built in your "repair priorities" order. i miss that in SE4, where a ship that has been in a space yard for 5 of 6 years cannot moove or defend the planet even beeing half-operative.

I to also miss this from SE3. I know there is an Empire Option that skips ships 'under construction' but I've never seen it to be a part of game play. I would love to see this back in SE5. I always loved being able to destroy or even capture stuff that is still in the process of being built.

Kana

Randallw

August 10th, 2004, 12:14 AM

In my opinion, SE5 should stay far away from "dollars" or "credits" and stick to resources. There is not much need to add another level of complication when everything can be accomplished using resources. Emergency Build sort of covers this, by pumping more resources into the build queue per turn. Similar methods can simulate buying ships quickly and such remarkably well.

I don't see any need for money. We play Space Empires NOT Space Accountants. The aim is for your empire to work towards supremacy. An empires economomic strength is easily represented by its production and resources. Narratively speaking your empire may have money for citizens to buy stuff, but surely a State run economy does not pay for things. Ships and units deemed necessary for the State are built when needed using reources supplied by State run resource suppliers. To help allies you supply vessels or give them resources. After all if you support an ally you can't just give them your own currency which differs from there's, you supply a resource of equal value. Any citizen who dares to demand payment from the government instead of fullfilling his patriotic duty should be shot http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Edit: I agree with having ships built gradually. A ship being built is little different from one being repaired. It is realistic in having half completed hulls in dock, and would be interesting to have half completed ships used as a Last resort if the space yard is attacked. Although perhaps until a vessel is commisioned it will be unable to act.

Baron Munchausen

August 10th, 2004, 12:36 AM

Colonel

August 10th, 2004, 02:21 AM

This is going along with the commerece idea, We need more to trade with there is really only ships, planets, and resourse to trade.

Next this idea has been brought up before but this is one minor change. You should be able to steal components of ships in battle and retrofit it on to that ship

Randallw

August 10th, 2004, 05:44 AM

Money is an essential feature of civilization. As the 'trade' system in SE IV currently works you have to scrounge around for things that your trading partner might want. And if you can't find something in your possession that the party with the goods you want is interested in, you're stuck. It's like being a primitive tribal trader with nothing but raw goods to offer.

The 'technology' called money was invented many thousands of years ago to solve this problem, and there's no good reason to assume that advanced space-faring races, even very alien races, couldn't think of the same solution to the trade problem that our relatively crude and unsophisticated ancestors did. There really does need to be some sort of money in the SE universe. It doesn't require fancy accounting or banking systems. We can 'aasume' that just like we assume the trade routes and freighters moving our resources. But yes, money is essential for dealing between nations and empires just as it is between individuals. Even today the US Government pays money to other governments for various purposes, and also receives money from other governments.

Yes, but say I give you a check for 1 million galaxy Credits (Good in all empires in the galaxy http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif)to help you. What are you going to spend it on. Will you buy resources or ships I, or another ally, could have given you, or will you use the check to buy stuff from your own people which as Emperor you could just take anyway. Money isn't just a piece of paper (or electronic credit) we all agree is worth something. Money is a guarantee that the piece of paper etc is worth part of the governments wealth. In the olden days (things were better then http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif) the standard was gold, and what is gold but a mineral resource. Why introduce an unnecesary element?.

Edit: The actual purpose of money, at least originally, was that you could give the guy in town 3 gold pieces instead of having to carry 3 cows, 2 sheep and a pig to market to pay for the clothes he is selling. A few coins is more convenient to carry, but we don't need to carry stuff we can just gift each other 300,000 resources.
end edit:
Meanwhile with all this talk of being dictator of your state, why not introduce the ability to modify empire settings as needed. This is one of the few good things from MOO3 (at least to me). Are your subjects dissenting?, send in the troops. Is your neighbour sending lots of spies at you, then use agents to root them all out. Also with all those AI populations you conquered, why not institute forced labour. With the benefits could of course come drawbacks like perhaps empire unhappiness at being spied on by their government all the time, unless they are the sort of people to understand the necessity of all this.

csebal

August 10th, 2004, 11:24 AM

A PBW related wish, maybe it was mentioned before, forgive me for not reading trough 85 pages of Posts http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Make a command line option to work with smaller, patch like savegames.

See, i would bet, that most of the savegame file remains unchanged when you make a new turn. This means, you wouldnt have to send all the data to the players, as they already have at least half of it.

I've tried to do some optimisations in the netcode of my mutiplayer tool based on the above assumption, but because of the encoding, there is nothing common between two save files. While i can't (or at least wouldn't like to) circumwent that encoding, malfador could easily create said functions for us.

How it would work:
- command line turn generation would create a gam file and a gam.patch file, which only includes the binary differences between the unencoded turn files of the previous turn and the new turn.
- this patch file would be encoded as well

on the client machine, the game can take the patch file as an argument instead of the gam file, in which case it uses the data from the previous save game to build the actual gam file for the current turn.

It sounds easy, and i think its not that much of an overhead, but i think this may reduce required network traffic for multiplayer games by a lot.

I think the way rsync compares files could be easily adopted to se4 as well (i was about to use its algorythm for my tool, until i realized it will not work on the generated savegame files, because of the above mentioned encryption).

for those not familiar with rsync, check out
http://samba.anu.edu.au/rsync/
and
http://samba.anu.edu.au/rsync/tech_report/

Colonel

August 10th, 2004, 02:29 PM

What about a temporary warp point creator, it would be a rather cheap component that would create a warp point but would collapse as soon as one ship got threw, And have another one that would allow a single fleet to get threw and then collapse and it would need to be repaired after use, this would make you have to have support ships for fleets that would need to be protected http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Raging Deadstar

August 10th, 2004, 02:45 PM

I like Colonels idea mainly for the fact that it would be great for the inevitable SEV Babylon 5 Mod http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Tempoary warp points, One Way Warp Points and such, More options for modders http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Colonel

August 10th, 2004, 04:02 PM

Tempoary warp points, One Way Warp Points and such, More options for modders http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

You know you can create one way warp points in maps i tend to this by accient, when i forget to add both sides of the warp point http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif but anyways

gosho mladenoff

August 10th, 2004, 11:37 PM

something i'd like to see is components/ cargo that can explode if the component cargo is destroyed. that way missiles in a magazine can blow the whole ship up if hit.

Also I'd like to see infinitely moddable levels of ship layers like an onion. layer 1 components would get hit first , layer two components later, all the way to the inner core layer x components. Ships could thus be modded in layers with tonnage sige divided in percents by ship class. Spherical ships would have more inner components than say elongated ships. weapons systems with armor penetration could be designed to skip x number of layers (or less or random).

Plus it would also be nice if certain weapon systems didn't have to be upgraded, such as missile launchers and gun components, but damage and range would be determined by their ammunition, thus providing two research streams, launchers and ammunition.

Lastly it would be nice if the targeting priorities of weapon system could be expanded. ie missile components would target ships but could be switched to point defence fire if required or desired.

i dont know but what do you think ? it should be programmable, moddable.

ggm

Aiken

August 11th, 2004, 02:23 PM

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 <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="images/icons/shocked.gif" /> ), 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! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

With some modifications (random tech selection), this could grow into fully chaotic research tree http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

Personal request:

* Missiles should be fully mountable.

* Mounts should affect all abilities: sheild regeneration, suuply generation, research points generation, etc.

Shane Watson

August 11th, 2004, 10:15 PM

Yes, but say I give you a check for 1 million galaxy Credits (Good in all empires in the galaxy http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif)to help you. What are you going to spend it on. Will you buy resources or ships I, or another ally, could have given you, or will you use the check to buy stuff from your own people which as Emperor you could just take anyway. Money isn't just a piece of paper (or electronic credit) we all agree is worth something. Money is a guarantee that the piece of paper etc is worth part of the governments wealth. In the olden days (things were better then http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif) the standard was gold, and what is gold but a mineral resource. Why introduce an unnecesary element?.

Hehe - Money isn't an unnecessary element. It's crucial. One of the reasons Communist Russia fell and why a large portion of its military has defected or is sitting rotting in dry dock. As a communist empire, they didn't feel the need to pay for unnecessary things like resources or soldiers wages. So things fell apart.

Rome also ran on money. It's an excellent lubricant for the Empire. It provides an easy way to keep the local govenors inline and a way to bribe those who you want over on your side or to provide you with information.

Look at *any* successful empire (including modern day U.S.) and you will find a vibrant monetary and economic system in place. Without it, things don't run.

Furthermore, I think it would be interesting if each of the empires in the game had their own currency, the value of which would be based on their gross production output or a combination of populace happiness plus productivity. That way, you would have true economic powers (like you do today) as opposed to military powers.

I think something akin to that would add another level to the game.

Of course, as with the rest of the options, it would be able to be turned off for those of us who have the need to just blow the hell out of their neighbor http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Okay, back to work.
Cheers,
~Shane

brianeyci

August 12th, 2004, 03:59 AM

SE:V requests... I'm sure these have been mentioned before but I'll just say em again. Before I start, I've only been on the SE:IV scene for... one week lol. The below suggestions are more related to my general observations of the game compared to current games... if you want SE:V to be more than a patched Version of SE:IV, I think you got to "popularize" it... but despite the old farts (j/k lol) saying what this will do to gameplay, I think it is still possible to preserve gameplay and make the game more attractive and accessible... If SE is ever to come out of its niche market and attract a general following... anyway these will be controversal suggestions that will probably not be accepted, and I will probably be flamed for this, but here it goes.

* 3D engine. SE:V does not have to turn into a RTS, but you should see 3D models superimposed on a background when viewing a specific system... and be able to travel through the system and click on planets ala homeworld would be nice, but maybe going overboard... have a highlighting option so small planets are not hard to see (in the 3D mode) ... fleets could be represented by the actual static 3D models... It does not have to be cutting edge graphics, but at least get rid of static camera angles... perhaps the two-dimensional overlay could be maintained, or even superimposed on a 3D viewscreen... for example, when you click on a planet on the grid map, the main background of the screen changes to a 3D view of the planet. The customizability of this 3D image for mods, etc could be maintained through a scripting language...

* make races come more "alive"... sounds, graphics, images, 3D customizable races similar to the current MMORPG thing where you can customize your character... you can make races come more alive without sacrificing customizability... like, you could have a screen when a player chooses a new race, he could rotate a 3D model around and choose which features to add/subtract... similar in sports games where you can customize the look of your character. Also have something where you can choose the voice of your race, and perhaps have diplomatic interactions between "talking heads"... customizability could be also maintained through downloads of new race voices, new 3D models for races, etc... and of course if you do a good job in the first place, the number of permutations for the look of your race should be endless... 3 tentacles? 2 eyes? body armor? green skin? pink skin? patterened skin?

* centralized server, sort of like Battle.net, where you log on with no hassles and are able to start games hassle free. You could maintain the PBW and PBEM features, but on the central server you could have blitz games or quick games. At the very *least*, you should implement a timer for in between turns.

Anyway. If the game is just going to be a rework of SE:IV, then so be it. But I'm of the opinion (and probably part of a small minority) that appreciates the incredible depth of SE:IV, but believes that it is possible to make it more accessible and asthetically pleasing without sacrificing gameplay.

IMO, you should throw out the 2D engine, and work with a 3D engine or get a license for one. (Wonder if Shrapnel Games could afford that lol) Just like Starcraft is the pinnacle of 2D Real-Time-Strategy gameplay and Fallout 2 the pinnacle of 2D isometric turn-based roleplaying, it looks like SE:IV is the pinnacle of 4x turn-based strategy. The only thing left to do is to do something truly innovative, like combine cutting edge graphics and customizability with the depth of SE:IV.

Now that would be something.

I'm ready for the flaming =D

Brian

Atrocities

August 12th, 2004, 04:59 AM

SEIV will be using the 3d engine of Starfury.

dogscoff

August 12th, 2004, 05:24 AM

Also have something where you can choose the voice of your race, and perhaps have diplomatic interactions between "talking heads".

(+ various other suggestions for eye-candy)

ALl very cute, and it would be nice to look at, but Malfador's resources are limited and I would much rather that the hours and hours of coding time that went into your graphical upgrades were spent on differences that will actually *matter*.

People have suggested before now some kind of AI plug-in, that lets people code their own AIs in real programming Languages and then plug the compiled results into the game. Maybe similar plug ins could be used to allow the kinds of cosmetic uprgades suggested in the quoted post..?

Paul1980au

August 12th, 2004, 07:10 AM

im sure there will be more work done on patches and that once the game is out - and im sure MM will do what they did with SE4 and make big changes to each patch as each patch is brought out - once the game is out feedback can come in and aaron can make regular patches based upon said feedback.

I guess though that for the time being getting the game coded well on the basics - a big factor is getting the combat featuers worked out - 3d is a big jump

Rejigging the strategies aspect and even giving scrips and allowing the AI to learn how to play the player against the human ? - i know this is being attempted with c-evo project the AI there is well developed.

Karibu

August 13th, 2004, 03:56 PM

Colonel

August 13th, 2004, 05:20 PM

Statistic how much population killed. Now you can lok how much enemy ship tonnage your ship designs have destroyed, but I would like to know how big massacer I am http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/shock.gif

i would want to add an idea to this, i want to be able to keep track of all the ships i've lost and to who i lost them to

I want more use for the temproal triat perhaps be able to send ships into the future so you could have it disappear and reappear after a certian number of turns, this would allow you to build alot of ships and not pay maintance for a little while and then build up a fleet quickly

Karibu

August 14th, 2004, 06:50 AM

Colonel's idea is good. Temporal race should be able to send a ship or a whole fleet in the future for some turns.

Also my this idea is propably presented before but I put it here anyway: Fleets within fleets. I wouldlike tidea to build specialized fleets with each of them with their own commands and tactics. THen they would gather under a mainfleet and move as one in the map. That way I could make it certain that several of my fleets appear in same spot in same time to battle.

Randallw

August 14th, 2004, 07:36 AM

dogscoff

August 14th, 2004, 10:42 AM

I've got a better Idea. Send warships back to previous turns. When it looks like the temporal race is about to be defeated a mighty warfleet arrives from the future where their word is law.

Yeah... YOu activate your "temporal reinforcements" facility and a huge fleet of your own ships blinks into existence. The snag is that you have to build all those ships within X turns (at the end of which they promptly disappear back into the past), or a temporal discontinuity destroys the facility- and the entire system it's in. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

Randallw

August 14th, 2004, 11:11 AM

Gee, I know I was only kidding and I know you were just going along with the joke, but your idea might actually work. Make it so only a planet or system with say 40B people can build the facility and make it so you can choose the number of ships you can currently make (so you could "summon 1 ship" knowing you can esily build it later, or 20 ships and hope you can get them done in "time") If for example you only have 5 SY in the system multiply it by the number of turns to the future you call to and get the maximum you can summon.

Edit: mind you theres the Bill & Ted factor
"You forget, only the ones who win can come from the future" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Fyron

August 14th, 2004, 12:31 PM

I'm ready for the flaming =D

You have come to the wrong place if you want to be flamed my friend. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

Aaron Hall stated in the IRC #se4 chat sessions yesterday that SEV will have 3D models for system objects, ships, etc. It will have pausable (can issue orders while paused so it is just like turn based combats that queue up orders and have each side act simultanously for a turn) real time combat, but the rest of the game will still be turn based. It has a scripting language being built, which will primarily be used for the AI. It might also be used for events, to make them more powerful, and to be able to make events with triggers.

Ed Kolis

August 14th, 2004, 01:49 PM

You know, that sounds like an actually halfway decent way of balancing the temporal uber technologies! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Antonin

August 14th, 2004, 10:25 PM

brianeyci said:
* 3D engine. SE:V does not have to turn into a RTS, but you should see 3D models superimposed on a background when viewing a specific system... and be able to travel through the system and click on planets ala homeworld would be nice, but maybe going overboard... have a highlighting option so small planets are not hard to see (in the 3D mode) ... fleets could be represented by the actual static 3D models... It does not have to be cutting edge graphics, but at least get rid of static camera angles... perhaps the two-dimensional overlay could be maintained, or even superimposed on a 3D viewscreen... for example, when you click on a planet on the grid map, the main background of the screen changes to a 3D view of the planet. The customizability of this 3D image for mods, etc could be maintained through a scripting language...

* make races come more "alive"... sounds, graphics, images, 3D customizable races similar to the current MMORPG thing where you can customize your character... you can make races come more alive without sacrificing customizability... like, you could have a screen when a player chooses a new race, he could rotate a 3D model around and choose which features to add/subtract... similar in sports games where you can customize the look of your character. Also have something where you can choose the voice of your race, and perhaps have diplomatic interactions between "talking heads"... customizability could be also maintained through downloads of new race voices, new 3D models for races, etc... and of course if you do a good job in the first place, the number of permutations for the look of your race should be endless... 3 tentacles? 2 eyes? body armor? green skin? pink skin? patterened skin?
....
IMO, you should throw out the 2D engine, and work with a 3D engine or get a license for one. (Wonder if Shrapnel Games could afford that lol) Just like Starcraft is the pinnacle of 2D Real-Time-Strategy gameplay and Fallout 2 the pinnacle of 2D isometric turn-based roleplaying, it looks like SE:IV is the pinnacle of 4x turn-based strategy. The only thing left to do is to do something truly innovative, like combine cutting edge graphics and customizability with the depth of SE:IV.

I disagree. I see no need at all for 3D graphics. I'd rather have better AI, additional commodities, new features such as governors or viceroys who could be assigned to oversee a particular sector.

A simple way to implement governors would be to make them so they provide certain modifiers for certain things. Governor Little Green Man A would provide a production boost. B would improve research, etc. They would work in much the same way as facilities that are already in the game, but would cost less in terms of resources, would provide a smaller positive modifier, and would be produced on the homeworld and sent out to the provinces. The more systems a governor is given to oversee, the smaller his/her/its positive modifier.

I don't see why some modder can't implement this now.

I don't see how focusing any programming energy on 3D graphics will make a better game. With all due respect to this poster, to me it's just eye candy. The gameplay is the thing. At least for an older gamer like me.

Through the years I've seen so much ballyhoo about 3D graphcs, and I've bought a lot of games featuring same. They look nice, but it has always been apparent that other areas are thinner because the programmers concentrated too much on creating a pretty picture.

Of course, I doubt that my opinion will mean doodly on this issue, because I doubt that many people here feel the same way. Oh well. People get all dreamy when they hear the term "3D," and that's that. It's kind of strange that people would prefer 3D combat and 3D system views to governors, new commodities, better diplomacy, a deeper economic system, etc.

But so be it. SE4 has come closer to being perfect than any game I have ever bought, and I'll still play it.

If SE5 comes out with a lot of fanfare and hype about 3D this and 3D that, I will have to take a very careful look at a demo before buying it. If there is no demo, I won't even consider buying it.

Fyron

August 15th, 2004, 02:40 AM

SE5 will have a lot more improvement than just 3d graphics... For one thing, the diplomacy model will be greatly improved. No more rigid treaty types; we will be able to specify the exact nature of all agreements, down to what is traded, whether you can cross borders, etc. Read the chat session logs with Aaron Hall about SE5 to see a small glimpse at such new features:

http://se4irc.spaceempires.net/archives.php

Why would there be no demo? This is not some faceless corporation here... Aaron has no choice but to cater to the fans, or he won't make many sales...

Raging Deadstar

August 15th, 2004, 09:58 AM

Imperator Fyron said:Why would there be no demo? This is not some faceless corporation here... Aaron has no choice but to cater to the fans, or he won't make many sales...

Malfador could very well be a faceless corporation depending on if Aaron managed to get to his wife and avoid the pot roast in time http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Personally I Think the 3d Thing will be cool, but from the rumours and answers malfador gave us from the chat sessions.... I think we can safely say this game will surpass SE4. /threads/images/Graemlins/ooo.gif

Asmala

August 15th, 2004, 03:07 PM

Imperator Fyron said:
For one thing, the diplomacy model will be greatly improved. No more rigid treaty types; we will be able to specify the exact nature of all agreements, down to what is traded, whether you can cross borders, etc.

Yeah the improvements will be great. Hopefully there will be also inbox and outbox to Messages sent between empires.

dogscoff

August 16th, 2004, 05:41 AM

We should go back through this thread and tick off all the requested freatures that aaron said will be in se5.

Population migration, variable planetary population limits, mixed racial bonuses... I'm so happy.

Hakar

August 16th, 2004, 10:02 AM

Here's my 2 research points:

*Research not simply being a matter of 'accumulate point until you have enough to gain a tech, then repeat', but having an upkeep and storage space for technologies.
Technology could be 'stored' in research centers, and should you loose 'storage space' trough war, you would start losing tech. As a result, a great war could, in essence, bLast one or more participants back to the stone age. (or at least the nuclear age)
The upkeep in tech would also have an effect on this, and it would force players to expand or spend time on researching ways of storing more tech.
If you lose a tech, you would no longer be able to build ships using it, nor would you be able to repair certain components.

*Derelict alien vessels, which you could tow back to a planet for analysis or refitting. One Precursor (to steala Star Control term) vessel could just tip the scale of war in your favor. Off course, if certain parts of the ship were damaged, you'd have to replace them with inferior native technology.

*Far more mods for weapons, and other components too.
Including Point Defence (allows it to shoot at units/seekers), Heavy (bigger but heavier), Light (lighter but weaker), Long-range (longer range, but heavier), Short-range (lighter but shorter range), Cheap (cheaper but heavier, Expensive (lighter but more expensive), etc.

*Specific arcs for weapons and shields.

*Limited turning capabilities for ships in combat. The bigger the ship, the worse it turns.
Have components that make ships more agile.

*Have racial traits that cause races to use more Living Quarters and/or Life Support on ships.

*Allow empires to establish formal borders between them.

*More than one dimension. Let empires research certain technoligies to be able to create gates between them, or let them find natural gates that might appear and/or disappear at random.

*Massive siege weapons that allow shots from one or more sectors apart. Imagine having a few of those on a planet and being able to fire at an approaching fleet.

*Colonies producing and requiring a certain amount of food per turn.

*The ability to move planets, suns, or even solar systems.

*Multiple victory conditions, such as an economic victory, diplomatic victory, intelligence victory (install a puppet ruler in every other empire), leaving the galaxy trough some huge gate (*cough*Ring*cough*), or discovering some big Secret of the Universe.

Kana

August 16th, 2004, 01:31 PM

I'm sure someone has brought this up already...but I was going through SJ's Modding FAQ, and I was looking through the Abilities section. There are a few things in there that were not implemented in SE4. I do hope they are in SE5 at least for modding sake.

One of which that stuck out in my mind is the Palace ability. This would be a great ability to assign to say a Empire capital. If captured or destroyed, many things could happen from and out right loss of the game to, maybe just having to relocate, and getting a big hit in moral, and economics and such...

Kana

brianeyci

August 16th, 2004, 07:37 PM

Antonin said:

I don't see how focusing any programming energy on 3D graphics will make a better game.

I never said it would make it a better game heh heh, its just one of my "wishes" like having someone do my laundry for me. I haven't tried starfury yet, but somehow I'm doubtful it can compete with the likes of the Doom 3 engine or Unreal 2k4 engine... so selling the game on its graphical merits would be a stupid idea. Don't overdo the "3D" promotion when ur selling it, or you'll be a laughing stock lol and it will turn off the die hard SE:IV fans (like Antonin =)

I think though there can be strategy in 3D... 3D combat introduces a whole new dimension. Also being able to customize the look of your race "in the game" without being a modder has some appealing aspects, roleplaying and such. Imagine rather than requiring a graphics artist to draw your shipset, you could customize the look of your ships "in the game".

I dunno if anybody has mentioned this, but there should be improvements to the music. Hell, forget 3D. If SE:V was exactly SE:IV but with an incredible soundtrack, I would get it just for that. Do the music and sound effects right this time. Having audio for the built-in races and maybe 20-30 voice sets for people to choose when building their empire would be awesome too... I liked Dues Ex not because its graphics were cutting edge, but because I loved its music =)

Also the RPG elements. I wonder if adding in more native RPG elements would be a possibility... for example, designing your leader, along the lines of Antonin's "governor" idea, but being able to design a leader archetype for your race... maybe the leader gains "experience" as he makes good decisions, and dies off after a certain number of turns, leaving his progeny with a percenatge of his predessor's experience al la Romance of the Three Kingdoms... when the leader dies, there could be a short period where another empire could take advantage of it. The diplomacy model of Romance of the Three Kingdoms was one of the most fun things about it.

Culture should have more effect than just percentage modifiers on building and research and the like, it should actually affect your diplomatic interactions with other races. Combining RPG elements such as leaders, artifacts, actual diplomacy/spies may be too much detail, but who complains about more detail in a kind of game like this. Hell, I wouldn't even object to ships' captains, we have fleet experience already why not have an actual "military" screen where you can promote/appoint governors/admirals/captains and the such.

Anyway maybe I'm from a different generation. But the most important thing to me is having the races come "alive" somehow, and the game come "alive". The atmosphere of the game is generally lacking. I don't know how to put it into words. Bad music + dated graphics are possibly the only turn-offs from reaching a wider audience. You underestimate today's gamers if you believe the detail of SE:IV turns them off. Gamers today play incredibly complex games with complex "tech-trees" and complex strategies. If there was a better implementation al la better graphics, or more accurately "atmosphere", I'm sure SE:V will have more sales. Get a freaking good composer to do the music, pay him whatever you have to. People will buy the game just for the soundtrack

There are some who will stick to their eye-candy, and there will always be some who stick to their strategy. But I don't believe these concepts have to be mutually exclusive (as I said before lol), and can complement each other. So called Eye-Candy can add to strategy, and certain strategies can be eye-candy. etc.

Brian

Antonin

August 16th, 2004, 10:04 PM

Imperator Fyron said:
SE5 will have a lot more improvement than just 3d graphics... For one thing, the diplomacy model will be greatly improved. No more rigid treaty types; we will be able to specify the exact nature of all agreements, down to what is traded, whether you can cross borders, etc. Read the chat session logs with Aaron Hall about SE5 to see a small glimpse at such new features...

Who will be playtesting the game? Is there going to be some kind of selection process in this forum, or will the playtesters just be "insiders"?

I will admit that I am skeptical about what type of game SE5 will be (sorry, I have not read the chat logs yet). It would be nice if some people who are not insiders can take part in the playtesting process. I can't even remotely call myself an insider, but I did help Atrocities develop a race...

Ed Kolis

August 16th, 2004, 10:55 PM

A few players will be insiders, a few will be selected from the Race to SE5 tournament, and the rest will be chosen by lottery, Last I heard.

Fyron

August 17th, 2004, 01:27 AM

Yeah. Aaron likes to bring in lots of fresh blood for each new game... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Kana said:
I'm sure someone has brought this up already...but I was going through SJ's Modding FAQ, and I was looking through the Abilities section.

SJ has a Modding FAQ? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/confused.gif Hmm... I like that smiley. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Gamers today play incredibly complex games with complex "tech-trees" and complex strategies.

Such as? Please name one modern non-niche game that can even approach the complexity of a game like SE4.

brianeyci

August 17th, 2004, 03:01 AM

Imperator Fyron said:
Please name one modern non-niche game that can even approach the complexity of a game like SE4.

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/sidmeiersalphacentauri/review.html

Enough said lol. Anyway SE:IV isn't niche, at least not in my opinion. And its not the complexity that makes SE:IV shine I think, its the way they organized it, especially the tech tree... and the customizability. No, no other game can compare to SE:IV. But its in a league of its own, so oh well lol.

And FPS do require a different kind of skill... timing is everything. Rather than having as much time as you would like to decide whether to run towards the guy who is throwing the grenade at you, you have a few seconds to make that simple decision. RTS too, a different kind of skill.

About SE:IV... I dunno why people have mentioned turns taking hours. So far I'm taking only a few minutes per turn... simple as checking that my research hasn't run out, designing a couple new ships, and going through my fleet/planet screens to make sure all my ships have orders and all my colony ships are moving... I wonder if joining five games will eat into my time later and it will take five hours for all five turns lol... anyway, I've made most of my "strategies" in my head in my "spare" eg when I'm supposed to be studying or concentrating on frying chicken spare time lol... (don't know if you can call them "strategies", but I was pretty proud when I figured out you could put a planetary napalm on a colony ship and surprise people lol)Anyway the past paragraph was OT so ignore =)

Anyway I think I mentioned in my previous Posts that SE:IV was in a league of its own. What is really appealing is the Theoretical/Applied research aspect. The unique and rich tech tree is what makes SE:IV shine I think, and that kind of mentality should be carried on to SE:V.

There was a post before about different mounts. I totally agree. Weapons should have more differences than rate of fire, damage and range... they should be truly unique and apart from each other. The post a few pages back about different kind of mounts... long range/short range/extended range/high cost/high damage really made sense to me. Perhaps there could be a certain rock/papers/sissors element to weapons... certain weapons better against certain armors.

Randallw

August 17th, 2004, 04:48 AM

[b]

About SE:IV... I dunno why people have mentioned turns taking hours. So far I'm taking only a few minutes per turn... simple as checking that my research hasn't run out, designing a couple new ships, and going through my fleet/planet screens to make sure all my ships have orders and all my colony ships are moving... I wonder if joining five games will eat into my time later and it will take five hours for all five turns lol... anyway, I've made most of my "strategies" in my head in my "spare" eg when I'm supposed to be studying or concentrating on frying chicken spare time lol... (don't know if you can call them "strategies", but I was pretty proud when I figured out you could put a planetary napalm on a colony ship and surprise people lol)Anyway the past paragraph was OT so ignore =)

I have a question for you. How long has your longest game gone for?. When starting it takes about 30 seconds to do the turn, but obviouslly gets longer the larger your empire. Some of us may be perfectionists who must make sure of everything each turn (and the latest feature to save during a turn is in my mind the greatest added). When you have 200 planets and 400 ships it takes at least an hour to check every planet and allocate the most effcient work. Transports must be moved from system to system topping up initial colonies etc. I only started to do well when I was prepared to micro-manage everything.

Edit: why is this all bold http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/confused.gif

Antonin

August 17th, 2004, 12:35 PM

Ed Kolis said:
A few players will be insiders, a few will be selected from the Race to SE5 tournament, and the rest will be chosen by lottery, Last I heard.

So that means the possibility that someone like me can have any involvement in the process is between zero and none. I play SE4 a lot, but my involvement in this forum has been only a matter of stopping by every now and then. I don't even know what the Race to SE5 tournament is. And I don't have much luck with lotteries. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smirk.gif

Aaron is probably a very busy fellow. Does he read this thread, or are ideas from this thread passed on to him by those of you who are "insiders"?

brianeyci

August 17th, 2004, 01:26 PM

I haven't... ahem finished a game yet. I'm a total newbie lol.

Honestly though. Using the planets screen you can go to each individual planet and allocate queues. I'm guessing some turns would be longer than most... but I see most of the time taken in running simulator tests and designing ships. Using the fleets screen you could direct fleets go go in which direction and whatnot. At most, I see a turn taking 30 min. There is a load queue button, for new planets. There is a send colony ship button. (Does anybody know exactly how this works? Does it always send the closest colony ship?) and 200 ships... I imagine the majority being in one/a few fleets, with a few scout ships and whatever.

Perfectionist or not, after playing around 10 games or so, I'll have this turn thing nailed down =)

Anyway I'll shut my mouth now, until I actually play a complete game (and win). Disregard above post =)

Ragnarok

August 17th, 2004, 02:58 PM

Antonin, Aaron has added all the ideas from this thread into his master list of ideas for SEV. He does read it and he does record all the good ideas.

Also, your chances of getting on a Beta slot for SEV is just as high as the rest of us here. Alot of times Aaron will choose a beta tester based on their machine so that he can test the game on all platforms and system specs. So when the applications become available fill it out and you will have just as good of a shot as we long time members of this forum do.

Baron Munchausen

August 17th, 2004, 06:59 PM

But your chances of getting on the beta test team for a 'big name' game (err, Homeworld 3, Civ IV, MOO 4 if some miracle delivers the rights to a decent company?) are drastically less. The SE community is tiny compared to the communities for these other games.

Fyron

August 17th, 2004, 07:50 PM

brianeyci said:

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/sidmeiersalphacentauri/review.html

Enough said lol.

That is not a modern game. It came out before SE4 even. :P That, and it is slightly less complex, due to combat being very simplified, with just a handful of stats, and combat being resloved on a unit vs. unit basis... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Gozra

August 18th, 2004, 09:28 AM

Randallw said:

[b]

About SE:IV... I dunno why people have mentioned turns taking hours. So far I'm taking only a few minutes per turn... simple as checking that my research hasn't run out, designing a couple new ships, and going through my fleet/planet screens to make sure all my ships have orders and all my colony ships are moving... I wonder if joining five games will eat into my time later and it will take five hours for all five turns lol... anyway, I've made most of my "strategies" in my head in my "spare" eg when I'm supposed to be studying or concentrating on frying chicken spare time lol... (don't know if you can call them "strategies", but I was pretty proud when I figured out you could put a planetary napalm on a colony ship and surprise people lol)Anyway the past paragraph was OT so ignore =)

I have a question for you. How long has your longest game gone for?. When starting it takes about 30 seconds to do the turn, but obviouslly gets longer the larger your empire. Some of us may be perfectionists who must make sure of everything each turn (and the latest feature to save during a turn is in my mind the greatest added). When you have 200 planets and 400 ships it takes at least an hour to check every planet and allocate the most effcient work. Transports must be moved from system to system topping up initial colonies etc. I only started to do well when I was prepared to micro-manage everything.

Edit: why is this all bold http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/confused.gif

I am in a game were I have over 1100 planets and 4500 ships in the fleet. I don't Micro manage and it still takes 3 hours to do a turn. (BTW I don't have the largest fleet) I am not sure how many "MEGA" SEIV games are out there or are played but unmanagable games are a bane in 4X games the larger you get the more you have to be aware of and keep in mind. So with that said
1.at a glance be able to know which systems have Resupply, Recource converters, Empty que Yards, all the other system wide enhancer faclities, and what each system and planet has in storage and what ships/fleets are in system and at the same time see what is in nearby systems.
2. In the ship list be able to return to the Last ship you picked (just like the message screen)
3. Be able to only look at one class of ship at a time
4.bulk faclity orders for planets(choose 10 planets and tell them all to build a Ship yard)
5.Strategy screen that shows the path of a fleet or ship how they get from system to system.

I think there are a few more admin things that can be done just can't remember them. SEIV is a great game can't wait until SEX (Space Empires Ten) When it will be a virtual reality thing and you step into the role of Emperor or Empress.

Randallw

August 18th, 2004, 10:25 AM

SEIV is a great game can't wait until SEX (Space Empires Ten) When it will be a virtual reality thing and you step into the role of Emperor or Empress.

Virtual reality SEX. Theres a game I'm sure would make a fair bit of money (while getting Malfador sued for false advertising). I could say more but theres only so much inuedo one can handle. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Edit: damn that bold, even my sig is affected.
SJ: Just close the bold tag, or stop quoting bad UBB code! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Fyron

August 18th, 2004, 12:27 PM

The problem is that Gozra seems to have added a bold tag at the beginning of the quote text, but not a closing bold tag.

Tanus

August 18th, 2004, 08:39 PM

4.bulk faclity orders for planets(choose 10 planets and tell them all to build a Ship yard)

This can already be done. Just go into the "Construction Queues" window (F7), shift-click all the planets/bases you want to build on, then click multi-add. Everything you add to the que here will be added to all of the locations you shift-clicked (they'll be shown with green arrows).

PS. I especially like your #1. Would be very handy to see system wide facilities present in systems. (can already see what systems have resupply and spaceports)

Fyron

August 18th, 2004, 08:59 PM

Tanus said:

4.bulk faclity orders for planets(choose 10 planets and tell them all to build a Ship yard)

This can already be done. Just go into the "Construction Queues" window (F7), shift-click all the planets/bases you want to build on, then click multi-add. Everything you add to the que here will be added to all of the locations you shift-clicked (they'll be shown with green arrows).

PS. I especially like your #1. Would be very handy to see system wide facilities present in systems. (can already see what systems have resupply and spaceports)

No, it can't be done. You can not use multi-add to add facilities, which is what Gozra was requesting.

brianeyci

August 18th, 2004, 09:55 PM

Imperator Fyron said:Enough said lol.

That is not a modern game. It came out before SE4 even. :P That, and it is slightly less complex, due to combat being very simplified, with just a handful of stats, and combat being resloved on a unit vs. unit basis... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[/quote]

Oh well I did say SE:IV was in a league of its own. Are we not restricting to turn based games? Well I'd have to say that's cheating, because turn-based games have infinitely more complexity than real time games, like pitting console games against computer games lol. Anyway, the thing that would make SE:IV better IMO is ATMOSPHERE (<----- Aaron see that please lol). The graphics are flat and dull, the music sucks, and you have to be a computer programmer to customize your race.

That and some sort of dedicated server/chat room where you could join and play real-time games (could still be turn based with a timer a la Age of Wonders before heat.net got dissolved).

Brian

BBegemott

August 19th, 2004, 09:30 AM

"Upgrade Facilities" button might be improved.

E.g. I have just researched IntelligenceIII facilities, and if I press "Upgrade Facilities", all planets with default construction rate (2000) now take 2 turns to build it. It is better to fill planet with Intel-2 facilities and then upgrade them to level 3. So I must go to planet construction window and manually change the queques back.

It would be nice to have one more button, which upgrades facilities only if the newer facility takes the same time to build as the obsolete one.

Antonin

August 19th, 2004, 12:23 PM

brianeyci said:
Anyway, the thing that would make SE:IV better IMO is ATMOSPHERE (<----- Aaron see that please lol). The graphics are flat and dull, the music sucks, and you have to be a computer programmer to customize your race.

Brian

SE4 is one of the few games that I own (and I own a lot) where the music is exactly appropriate to the gameplay. Even though you can play the game without the CD, I often put the CD in so I can hear the music as I play.

With most games the music is just a waste of CD space. (Star Craft is one exception; Cleopatra and Caesar III are others) With SE4, the music is just right.

I compose similar "darkwave" music myself. Does anyone know if Aaron will use any user-created music in SE5?

Antonin

August 19th, 2004, 12:34 PM

Ragnarok said:
Antonin, Aaron has added all the ideas from this thread into his master list of ideas for SEV. He does read it and he does record all the good ideas.

Also, your chances of getting on a Beta slot for SEV is just as high as the rest of us here. Alot of times Aaron will choose a beta tester based on their machine so that he can test the game on all platforms and system specs. So when the applications become available fill it out and you will have just as good of a shot as we long time members of this forum do.

I'm very happy to see that what we are saying here does get to Aaron. I'm just concerned that somebody who plays SE4 a lot and has 3,463 Posts here will be listened to more than a person who plays SE4 a lot and has, say, 60 Posts here. Posting a lot does not mean one's ideas regarding SE5 are necessarily better. But I guess I have no control over how ideas are perceived by Aaron or anybody else.

I will certainly fill out an application for a beta testing position. I hope I have better luck with that than I've had filling out employment applications in the real world.

BTW, I think I qualify as a "long time member" of this forum. I have been a member since June 2001.

It's just that I lurk far, far more than I post. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

David E. Gervais

August 19th, 2004, 01:15 PM

FYI: The 'culled' list of suggestions that come from here does not include 'useless info' like post counts. Any and all suggestions are welcome, and what makes a suggestion more 'interesting' is if there are several people 'wishing' for the same thing. If the list had 1000 sugestions and no two were tha same, chanches are very few will end up in the game.

This is a good place to discuss different ideas, and if you take the time to read the two chat transcripts from the Last #se4 guest speaker "Aaron Hall" befor making your suggestions, you will have a good idea where the game is heading.

After all is said and done, rest assured Aaron listens to ALL sugestions, and will do his best to incorporate the more interesting 'tweaks' as sugested here.

Cheers! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Ragnarok

August 19th, 2004, 01:44 PM

I personally really liked the idea brought out a couple pages back about the temporal facility. This facility would allow you to bring ships from the future to this time to help fight a battle, but then you would have to build those ships by that date or else suffer some sort of major penalty. Perhaps the first facility would only allow you to bring ships from a few months in the future, but an advanced facility would allow you to bring in years from the future. The idea was brought out more clearly in previous Posts.

Suicide Junkie

August 19th, 2004, 02:57 PM

Ragnarok said:
I personally really liked the idea brought out a couple pages back about the temperal facility. This facility would allow you to bring ships from the future to this time to help fight a battle, but then you would have to build those ships by that date or else suffer some sort of major penalty. Perhaps the first facility would only allow you to bring ships from a few months in the future, but an advanced facility would allow you to bring in years from the future. The idea was brought out more clearly in previous Posts.

It would probably be easy to make a temporal ship yard:
The yard would complete the ship as soon as you ask for it, but then spend X turns working on the ship and be unavailable.

Baron Munchausen

August 19th, 2004, 05:33 PM

That's a cool idea but has one fatal flaw. What if you request a ship for immediate use -- like in defense of the planet where the Temporal Space Yard is located -- and lose the battle. If the TSY is destroyed by orbital bombardment on the same or next turn after completing the ship, is it possible for the ship to have been completed in the 'future' after the battle? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/confused.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/confused.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/confused.gif

I think the 'time slip' device to give a certain fixed percentage chance of being 'elsewhen' and avoiding weapon hits that would otherwise have occured is a better use of the temporal concept. (A flat chance for weapons to miss even if they get their 'to hit' percentage.) Also, some sort of 'time slowing' device for bogging down or completely stopping your enemy (think 'stasis device' from MOO) would also be nice. With actual tracking of supplies in SE we could give the device a very high supply usage, too, and set a practical limit to its use. Anyway, both devices are contained in the combat context and don't create strategic problems because of conflict between game events and the operation of the device(s).

Suicide Junkie

August 19th, 2004, 07:53 PM

Yeah, bending time rather than breaking prevents a lot of crazy things. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Temporal shields might be nice...
The damage dealt to the ship is delayed for a couple combat rounds, and then it only hits the ship after you've fired back with a volley or two http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif.

ZeroAdunn

August 19th, 2004, 09:55 PM

SJ: I really like that idea for temporal shields. I don't like the idea of temporal yards, period. Maybe the addition of a mine that could freeze a ship in place for X number of turns?

Colonel

August 19th, 2004, 10:39 PM

These Temproal Ideas are getting beter and better, Temproal shields are great, same as the idea about temproal space yards,temproal mines

Randallw

August 19th, 2004, 11:16 PM

Baron Munchausen said:
That's a cool idea but has one fatal flaw. What if you request a ship for immediate use -- like in defense of the planet where the Temporal Space Yard is located -- and lose the battle. If the TSY is destroyed by orbital bombardment on the same or next turn after completing the ship, is it possible for the ship to have been completed in the 'future' after the battle? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/confused.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/confused.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/confused.gif

This is why I mentioned the "Bill and Ted" factor

"Only the one who wins can travel to the past"

Captain Kwok

August 20th, 2004, 02:36 AM

An obvious idea for a temporal weapon would be one that disrupts reload time.

Nice idea with the temporal shields SJ. Would be an interesting effect to say the least.

Fyron

August 20th, 2004, 03:18 AM

Captain Kwok said:
An obvious idea for a temporal weapon would be one that disrupts reload time.

Psychic and Crystalline races already have such weapons. Kind of pointless if all racial tech traits start having the same features...

Kobbler

August 20th, 2004, 09:21 AM

Hi to all

just a consideration about SEV... one of the best feature I found in SEIV was the possibility to customize the race not only for the behaviour (AI, Racial traits an so on) but also but also for the appearance (shipset), that gave each race a unique look and it was possible to have many diffeerent races available.
With the 3d battle system this could become more difficult (are really there so much people able to use 3d graphic programs?.
What if I can define ten races with different racial traits and capability but on the screen they appear all the same? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/confused.gif
I know graphic is not the main point for the game but... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

Fyron

August 20th, 2004, 02:28 PM

95% of shipsets made for SEIV are made by creating 3d models, then rendering them for static 2d shots. It is only a matter of converting these models to .X format to get them to work in SEV. Certainly, it is harder to do this with some formats than others, but it is still quite doable. At worst, shipset authors have to learn a different program to make their models (Wings 3d is free, and I believe it exports to .X).

Captain Kwok

August 20th, 2004, 02:30 PM

Imperator Fyron said:

Captain Kwok said:
An obvious idea for a temporal weapon would be one that disrupts reload time.

Psychic and Crystalline races already have such weapons. Kind of pointless if all racial tech traits start having the same features...

Well, in that case it might be better to give Psychic, Crystalline traits different weapons that are more appropriate...

Ed Kolis

August 20th, 2004, 05:10 PM

Imperator Fyron said:
(Wings 3d is free, and I believe it exports to .X).

Actually, Wings doesn't export to .X, but it does export to .3DS and .OBJ, both of which are fairly easily converted to .X.

Fyron

August 20th, 2004, 06:55 PM

Captain Kwok said:
Well, in that case it might be better to give Psychic, Crystalline traits different weapons that are more appropriate...

The psychic one is most appropriate. It does not work on ships with a master computer. So, it confuses the crew and delays their actions. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif The crystalline one is fairly weird though...

Tanus

August 21st, 2004, 12:57 AM

One thing I'd definitely like to be able to do, is to retrofit by class.

IE. Bring up a retrofit screen, pick a class of ship currently in active service, and be able to retrofit every ship of that class all at once, rather than having to go around to every planet and construction yard to retrofit the ships.

Captain Kwok

August 21st, 2004, 02:55 AM

Imperator Fyron said:

Captain Kwok said:
Well, in that case it might be better to give Psychic, Crystalline traits different weapons that are more appropriate...

The psychic one is most appropriate. It does not work on ships with a master computer. So, it confuses the crew and delays their actions. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif The crystalline one is fairly weird though...

Keep in mind there are (were) two Versions of basically the same ability that affects reload times - disrupt reload time and increase reload time. The latter might be best for Temporal, while the disrupt reload ability might go well with Psychic.

Fyron

August 21st, 2004, 03:09 AM

Erm... why would the temporal Version not affect ships with a Master Computer? "Increase Reload Time" type is the one that is stopped by Master Computers. It makes sense for a psychic weapon, which needs crew to affect. "Disrupt Reload Time" affects any ship, Master Computer or no.

Captain Kwok

August 21st, 2004, 11:15 AM

Imperator Fyron said:
Erm... why would the temporal Version not affect ships with a Master Computer? "Increase Reload Time" type is the one that is stopped by Master Computers. It makes sense for a psychic weapon, which needs crew to affect. "Disrupt Reload Time" affects any ship, Master Computer or no.

That's because I'm not specifically talking about SE:IV, but how these abilities might be applied in SE:V. In that case, I think "Increase Reload Time" would be better suited to Temporal technology and so MM can make it affect Master Computers. "Disrupt Reload Time" then can be used to effect ships with crews only as a Psychic technology.

Anyways we should be able to make our own damage types so maybe it won't matter all that much. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

Suicide Junkie

August 21st, 2004, 04:56 PM

Why should the names be swapped if it has no other effect?

Captain Kwok

August 21st, 2004, 05:08 PM

Suicide Junkie said:
Why should the names be swapped if it has no other effect?

'cause it makes more sense. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

I don't care really, my original post on this matter was just that an ability that interferes with reload times goes well with temporal technology. I wasn't actually quoting the SE:IV ability name (and hence characteristics of) as Fyron assumed in his response.

Colonel

August 21st, 2004, 05:41 PM

You guys are still talking about temproal stuff, that was like 6 pages back but anyways i got some new ideas

You all have had this happen to you at least once, ships being abandoned (lack of resourses) anyways why do they disappear i mean they must still be there its not like they are in the ocean and rust got um, i think they should be allowed to be salvaged and drift around one move per turn but not leaveing the system-- (that is if there are still warp points if not then drift everywhere). Also i think if ships early on go out to far away from planets i think there should be X chance they would disappear forever due to lack of communication and primitive populsion system. Also have them be able to be found or randomly pop up when you devolpe more advanced detection technology

Now--Atmospheric Malufunctions---If a ship is orbiting a planet(uninhabited) that has high amounts of ion storms or other things there should be a chance for the ship to crash into the planet for various reasons.
For both ideas
You could have a new tech called salavage which would allow you recover ships in space and more advanced Version of the tech would allow you to recover ships that have crashed into planets

These ideas bring up an intresting idea: recovery of enemy ships (stealing tech) or recovering ally ships for a price http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Aiken

August 21st, 2004, 09:56 PM

Wanted: ability to control AI intel project's queue from ai data file (like Construction_Facility.txt or Construction_vehicles.txt)

Ryan

August 22nd, 2004, 01:13 AM

Suggestions:

1) Last time I played SE:IV G, I built a base which could open and close warp-points, but as I recall, the base required at least one movement point to do any warp-point opening or closing. Perhaps this could be fixed?

2) An interesting addition would be adaptive technology which attunes itself to work better against enemy technologies. An example, adaptive shielding which can eventually completely protect itself against certain frequencies of attacks.

3) A new intel project where an empire could slowly take over another empire covertly. Such as inserting agents into the enemy empire whom will slowly gain in rank and become high commanders.

4) More event flexibility, such as an advanced ship coming from the future to warn your empire about a forthcoming war which will end NOT in your favor, to prepare you. In the background, I'd suggest giving one of the AI's the order to go into a huge militaristic operation against your empire, the breaking point of the war would be random.

5) Spatial anomalies would be nice, such as warp points which periodically open and close, or erratic warp points which randomize their destination, or even warp points which have a small chance every time a vessel goes through of closing forever and severely damaging the passing vessel.

6) Faster AI turn processing never hurts...

Sorry if any of these have been previously mentioned, if I sounded too vague, and/or if I rambled.

hatch3tman

August 23rd, 2004, 02:17 AM

OK. 1st I don't play this game, my new roomie does, so forgive my being a newbie and ignorant to the ways of the game. but I thought it would be badass to create a race of ultimate ground warriors of such power that troop transports would be more terrifying than any battleship. "oh my god, what if one of those transports gets through the blockade!" the type of race that doesn't colonise, or research or anything, but just lands troops and takes planets with devastating ferrocity. Unfortunantly it was poitned out to me that in SE4 one must research 2 technologies to get basic troops. wtf. why is it easier to make warships than ground troops? 2001 A Space Oddesey featured the first ground troops during the "dawn of man" bit. anyway. if SE5 let me create a "blugblater beasts of traal" race so that I could viciously stomp people on the ground. I might give it a try.

Fyron

August 23rd, 2004, 02:34 AM

SE4 is highly moddable, and it takes only a minute or two to add a new troop class that requires no technology, or to make Small Troops require no technology to research. To make Small Troops available from the start, go into TechArea.txt and locate the Troops tech. Set this field to 0 instead of 1, so that the Troops tech area requires no technologies to be able to research:

Number of Tech Req := 1

change to:

Number of Tech Req := 0

Then, set this field to 1 instead of 0, so that you will start any game with level 1 in Troops technology:

Start Level := 0

change to:

Start Level := 1

Of course, it is best to create a mod folder, named whatever you would like (such as Fast Troops), then copy the data folder (folder and all) into it. Make your modifications in this mod folder. Then, go to the folder with the SE4 executable, and open Path.txt. Change this line to have the name of your mod:

Using Mod Directory := None

change to:

Using Mod Directory := Fast Troops

Randallw

August 23rd, 2004, 03:50 AM

if SE5 let me create a "blugblater beasts of traal" race so that I could viciously stomp people on the ground. I might give it a try.

You can already create such a race in SE4. Simply increase physical strength so your people are stronger. You still need to develop troops, but your troops will have an advantage against weak races. In practice though this has little benefit as the advantage is cancelled out by players habits of dropping 400 troops at once.

Suicide Junkie

August 23rd, 2004, 07:42 PM

There's also the tendency for players to glass the planet from orbit instead of fighting on the ground...

Colonel

August 23rd, 2004, 09:26 PM

Hey OT but kool fast reply

Anyways, I think fighters should play more of a role in troop combat also there should be weapons for fighters that only attack defensive ground units and facilties (ie troops, Planet Shield Generator). Also I think all units should be able to play into a general invasion. Example, Ships take out all defensive ships and bases, Drones attack targets like Planetary Shields, Then Fighters come in for a full sweep of Troops, and then Ground Troops start there invasion. Also a general side note but fighters need to be MUCH more moddable, i have tried modding somethings haveing to do with fighters but most everything with fighters is hard coded.

Fyron

August 24th, 2004, 01:43 AM

In the #se4 chats, Aaron stated that you will be able to mod the vehicle types themselves. Not Small Fighter vs. Large Fighter, but what defines a fighter...

AMF

August 24th, 2004, 11:20 AM

A SCENARIO EDITOR!

I really want to be able to write specific scenarios such as The Fifth Zhodani War (traveller), Star Wars (rebs v. empire), Dominion Wars (Star Trek DS9), etc...etc...etc...

It would have to allow you to set up game starts with empires that were vastly different in tech, starting positions, resources, pre-defined fleets, pretty much everything...but I can't really see as how that'd be so difficult, given that the savegames and EMP-PLR-GAM file structure seems suited to just that...

Hopefully it ain't wishful thinking...

Alarik

Raging Deadstar

August 24th, 2004, 10:57 PM

Randallw said:

if SE5 let me create a "blugblater beasts of traal" race so that I could viciously stomp people on the ground. I might give it a try.

You can already create such a race in SE4. Simply increase physical strength so your people are stronger. You still need to develop troops, but your troops will have an advantage against weak races. In practice though this has little benefit as the advantage is cancelled out by players habits of dropping 400 troops at once.

I can't see Any problem with that! I'm not going to send 10 troops when i can send 400 to do the same job.

There is No such thing as Overkill. There is No Kill or Just Enough Kill.

Next you'll be criticising me for sending 200 ship fleets to glass a newly established enemy colony, or sending star destroyers to destroy the system that pesky Alien scout keeps passing through. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

Colonel

August 24th, 2004, 11:55 PM

The main reason i want troops to be more vaible option is only because it is just easyer for me to send a star destroyer with a mine sweeper to the enemy capital system and blow S*I* Up.

Captain Kwok

August 24th, 2004, 11:58 PM

Colonel said:
The main reason i want troops to be more vaible option is only because it is just easyer for me to send a star destroyer with a mine sweeper to the enemy capital system and blow S*I* Up.

Yes, but you lose all the potential benefits of capturing that system - resources, population, etc. - doing that. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

Anyways, Aaron has mentioned that ground combat is going to a bit more sophisticated than SE:IV.

Randallw

August 26th, 2004, 04:09 AM

Warning Rant:

For the love of all that is good fix the AI so that it knows the difference between maximum movement and necessary movement /threads/images/Graemlins/mad.gif. I am sick of running simulations where the AI moves ships right next to enemy ships and then realises it has movement left so it moves away. I just did a sim where it was next to the enemy in the corner, it had 3 movement left so it moves away 3 thus reducing its chance to hit the enemy.

Karibu

August 26th, 2004, 05:48 AM

Randallw, have you looked what strategy your ships have? If it has Optimal Firing Range (default) it'll do that. I often use Point Blank -strategy, so that it'll always fire when it's closest.

Randallw

August 26th, 2004, 05:54 AM

I understand the difference between pointblank and optimal range. In the cases I metion though why would it move next to them in the first place if it has optimal range. Its most prevalent when you have lots of ships all milling about near each other. An example not subject to range orders is when vessels are in the corner, they can't move any further and yet they spend all their movement going back and forth in the corner until they use up all their movement.

bearclaw

August 26th, 2004, 08:37 PM

What about increased ability for Game Masters for RP-styled games! Perhaps even an option to have the game function as a GM-run RP experiance.

Basicly, an in-game scenario editor and more cheat codes that could all be controlled from the Master Login only. That way, the other players don't have access to cheat codes but if the GM wanted to achive a certain result, then the tools would be at his/her disposal.

To ensure game-play isn't abused, there could be an indicator stating that this particular game has GM tools enabled or some such.

I'm in the StarScape PBEM game and ShadowStar has done a remarkable job of GMing SeIV, but I'm sure there are still some aspects that could be better done with dedicated GM tools. Also, Geo's idea for PBW Starfury would be much easier done with these.

On a personal note, I for one would LOVE to see more types of games like this. Having been a GM for years, I'd even be up to host one if the tools to accomplish these things were available.

Colonel

August 26th, 2004, 08:46 PM

How about the chance of ships hitting one another in combat, the chance would increase with the more ships in combat.

Captain Kwok

August 26th, 2004, 09:03 PM

Colonel said:
How about the chance of ships hitting one another in combat, the chance would increase with the more ships in combat.

No way! I don't think there should be any collisions at all without a ram order being issued. It'd be a micro nightmare (refer to Star Fury here).

Ed Kolis

August 26th, 2004, 09:07 PM

Oh, I thought he meant with their weapons... though it also kind of implies all combat in SE4 is a draw http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Colonel

August 27th, 2004, 07:34 PM

Why not, I think it is insane that such huge fleets can alll come that close without that possiblility. If there were hundreds modern water ships that close they would be mass amounts hitting each other

Phoenix-D

August 27th, 2004, 07:39 PM

Colonel said:
Why not, I think it is insane that such huge fleets can alll come that close without that possiblility. If there were hundreds modern water ships that close they would be mass amounts hitting each other

Because SE is pretty abstract. You'll notice for example that nine 150-kt Escorts take up more map space than a single planet that probably weighs many, many GIGAtons.

Colonel

August 27th, 2004, 08:35 PM

Yes but that is out of necessity not because it is abstract. I sure as heck wouldnt wanr to look at something that was fit to size, would you???? This isnt dealing with the abstract this is a realism idea. TO refine my previous idea

Ship would have a chance to hit one another only if they were within say 1 square distances, also what would be factored in would be both ship directions, top speed, and sensor technology level, thats all i got for right now but there very well maybe more.

Small idea Gravitionial Forces, If you leave a ship in one place it should move closer to planets or stars depending on location and size---So a ship if it were near a star it might fall into orbit around the star, and if the ship has lost all its engines and movement it could be destroyed by the star but a ship with engines would stay in orbit unless it lost all Crew Quarters and Bridge---If it has Crew Quarters then the crew could still keep the ship alive.

Ryan

August 28th, 2004, 12:27 AM

Why exactly would a ship be pulled directly into a star and be destroyed if it has no engines? Most likely, it would just achieve an unvoluntary orbit around the star. A ship with engines on the other hand would probably just sit in place providing the crew isn't sleeping. Basically a ship with engines would sit in place and a ship without engines would be sucked into the nearest gravity well and get an orbit...

...I think? Meh.

(EDIT: Grammar error(s).)

Colonel

August 28th, 2004, 12:47 AM

New idea, this has been bothering me in all the games i have played. Gradual technology discovery, I will give an example, If i discover Contra Terrene Engines i dont want to have to research another couple of engine techs to advance that type of engine, I want a certian number of tech points set aside for that technology research. You would also have a choose to cut funding to each of the ongoing research projects if you need more for a new one. Do you guys understand that

Renegade 13

August 28th, 2004, 12:47 AM

Orbits do decay over time, depending on their original stability. Satellites in Earth orbit for instance need adjusted every once in a while, in order to maintain their stationary orbit. However, the orbital decay takes quite a long time, as long as the original orbit was relatively stable.

Colonel

August 28th, 2004, 12:49 AM

yes but if a ship was attacked and lost its engines, and it was drifting if it got caught in orbit it wouldnt Last that long

Fyron

August 28th, 2004, 04:22 AM

Maybe after a few millennia. Most objects floating in space acquire a more or less stable orbit, unless they were heading directly towards the gravity source.

TheDeadlyShoe

August 28th, 2004, 04:58 PM

Yeah, you only need your engines to stay in 'orbit' if your orbit is unstable in the first place. Or if you're catching atmospheric drag.

Phoenix-D

August 28th, 2004, 05:04 PM

Colonel said:
Yes but that is out of necessity not because it is abstract. I sure as heck wouldnt wanr to look at something that was fit to size, would you???? This isnt dealing with the abstract this is a realism idea. TO refine my previous idea

... The small relative size is what MAKES it abstract. More to the point the combat map is 2d; it would be trival for ships to pass through the same square by simply adjusting their course slightly.

Ship would have a chance to hit one another only if they were within say 1 square distances, also what would be factored in would be both ship directions, top speed, and sensor technology level, thats all i got for right now but there very well maybe more.

I think that would be a very bad idea.

Small idea Gravitionial Forces, If you leave a ship in one place it should move closer to planets or stars depending on location and size---So a ship if it were near a star it might fall into orbit around the star, and if the ship has lost all its engines and movement it could be destroyed by the star but a ship with engines would stay in orbit unless it lost all Crew Quarters and Bridge---If it has Crew Quarters then the crew could still keep the ship alive.

Most things are either going to go into orbit or zip on by, depending on what speed they were traveling at the time. This is definitely an aspect that isn't needed. Things don't just fall out of orbit if they loose their engines, FYI..not unless they are in very low orbit (proof: the Moon has no engines. It is in orbit)

Tanus

August 28th, 2004, 11:09 PM

proof: the Moon has no engines. It is in orbit)

OT: Have you read David Weber's "Empire from the Ashes" series? Puts a different spin on that :p

But no, ships should not just start drifting into stars if they lose their engines. The mechanics of the game prohibit RealPhysics as it is, and that would just make things frustrating and difficult.

Colonel

August 28th, 2004, 11:57 PM

Ok so one bad idea, but i still think gradual tech discovery idea little ways up this page is good.

Emperor Fritsch the Dense

August 31st, 2004, 05:46 PM

The ability to multi add (construction) ships and facilities like you can with units.
Emperor Fritsch the Dense

Randallw

August 31st, 2004, 11:39 PM

Units are small enough, and take up so little resources, that more than 1 can be built a turn. Ships cannot be built in less than a full turn, unless you have 12B people on one planet, so it is impossible to build more than 1 a turn. If you want to build more than 1 ship you have to build them each after the other.

Ed Kolis

September 1st, 2004, 12:21 AM

But you could mod small ships that take less than 1 turn to build, or build, say, 2 over the course of 3 turns rather than 4 if they cost 3000 apiece and you can build with 2000...

Randallw

September 1st, 2004, 05:33 AM

oh right. I didn't think about ship construction taking up fractions.

bearclaw

September 1st, 2004, 12:56 PM

Emperor Fritsch the Dense said:
The ability to multi add (construction) ships and facilities like you can with units.
Emperor Fritsch the Dense

Are you refering to Multi-Add as in (shipX) x2, or Multi-Add as in putting the same construction on multiple build Queues?

In regards to Multi-Add to more than one build queue the option for One Turns Worth as well as 1,5,10,etc. Another would be to Multi-Add Facilities to more than one queue at a time.

Ah, what the heck, just have all the same options with the Multi-Add as you get with individule build queues.

Kamog

September 2nd, 2004, 02:58 AM

Well, the idea of ships without engines falling into stars isn't a bad idea. After all, ships do fall into black holes in the game, and yet in reality it should be just as easy to orbit a black hole as it is to orbit a star.

Hiruu

September 2nd, 2004, 02:06 PM

I wish I could see some screenshots!

Emperor Fritsch the Dense

September 2nd, 2004, 06:55 PM

Bearclaw understood me lol, i meant the ability to quicky have several colonies build the same thing. not to do it in one turn. i hate having huge empires and i come along the convert atmosphere tech....and spend an hour building the facility on my planets. small things like that detract from the game for me.
When it comes to an orbit the objects velocity has to be equal to the gravity being exerted upon it. otherwise it will fall into the gravity well at a speed depending on the difference of objects speed vs gravitational pull. kick me if im being an ***.
Emperor Fritsch the Asnine

Atrocities

September 4th, 2004, 01:39 AM

SE V IDEAS 

1. Resources - Mining of nebula for resources. (Component that can be placed on ships that draws supplies and or resources directly from a nebula)
2. Supply - Transporter system between planets. (As technology improves, cargo can be "transported" via energy beams to another planet with the same Transporter facility.)
3. Combat - Cloaked ships get first shot (Shouldn't they?)
4. Combat - All ships fire at same time - No bonus (Non cloaked that is.)
5. Combat - Option to set planet defense strategies
6. Combat - Some way to INTEL a planet before combat
7. Component/Combat - Weapon specific components that support only one weapon system. (IE torpedo targeting I - V = more accurate torpedos.)
8. Game - Option to liberate or conquer a planet that has been captured by another race and that you are now attacking.
9. Fleet - The ability to grant command of a fleet to an allied leader. (Cannot be used against you)
10. Game - An Undo Button. In case you accidently take your EB off when you did not want to, you can turn it back on.
11. Game / Component - As ships travel through space they accure damage unless they have deflectors. (From game start)
12. Game - Ability to limit things (Anything) to one or two per empire as well as system, ship, base, etc. (So if someone were to create a Presidential palace, they could limit it to ONE PER EMPIRE)
13. Game - New Race Ability "Advanced Trait" Pacifist. Weapons are NON leathal. Race focused on disable and capture.
14. Game - Add Captain / Admiral personnel as described in other post. (And on yahoo) (Can email idea once again to malfador if needed)
15. Game - Fog Of War - Show non of the map, nothing except space until player begins to explore. As player explores, the area explored becomes visable.
16. Game - Limit sensors to sectors instead of systems. Make the player explore the system before it is known completely to him.
17. Game - Ancient / Random - System infested with acient mine field. (Already suggesed by me eariler in this thread)
18. Game - Ancient / Random - Discovery of Derilect ship results in either or a Positive or Negative happening. Gain new technology upon anylizing ship, or such thing as your lossing your ship that discovered it to alien infestasion or ancient booby trap.
19. Game - Add rare comodities to the game. Each gives the player access to new technology to explore which in turn gives new weapons, armor, other bonuses.
20. Game - Invent of Barter system. Players can establish trade routes over comodities and or other items they wish to trade. (Player one builds X ship design and trades to Player two for Resources, $$, or comodities.)

Spectarofdeath

September 4th, 2004, 04:20 AM

Cloaking, yes, always get the first shot, no. If it's like that then all you'll have is another Birth of the Federation where a romulan fleet of warbirds can wipe out just about anything and everything in the first shot, without any losses. It will need some kind of balancing system, something that might let them shoot first, but only like 1/4 of their weapons, or the weapons are only at 1/4 of their true damage potential. This would give the ability to still recieve some kind of "surprise attack" but still allowing some kind of a chance for defending players. Seriously, who wants to get their fleet of 30 battleships wiped out without even firing one shot off? Sensors that can detect cloaked ships would also help, but if the option to fire on cloaked ships is given, it too should also be given a to hit penalty of some kind.

Colonel

September 4th, 2004, 12:42 PM

MAIN IDEA

Heres a little idea, No fly zones within your empire. You could limit off entire systems off to all but the best of your ships. This no fly zone would aplly to both your ships and ally ships, short of you giving a ship a direct order to go there. In these areas you would get X percent better counter intel because of the limited travel. Also if you did this to your home sector it would make the people unhappy but that effect would not apply to a system made up of military installations, research and intel compounds.

MAIN IDEA

Next little idea, Escort for ally ships, if you dont like random ships roaming your terrotory then you could give them a ship(s) escort until they leave your terroitory. This would help prevent sneak attack by former allies. Also a ship could try to avoid this with cloaks and what not.

MEDIUM IDEA

This is a minor thing but i think that if you capture a enemy planet especially homeworld it should imparetive that your enemy recapture it not just bLast it. In one of my games i captured an AI homeworld with troops and then couldnt defend it so i had to leave it to be destrioed, anyway my enemy just bLasted it with no attempt to recapture it. I think that should make the orginal owners race people very unhappy.

MINOR SMALL IDEA

Nother Idea, If you cut off a ship from its home race, like completely destroied them or cut the only wormhole back, each of there ships would show up as its own empire and would get X number of turns to either make a trade alliance with you or another race for supplies or it could settle a planet, each crew quarters would give 1 million people

TNZ

September 5th, 2004, 02:01 AM

In Birth of the Federation combat was turn-based but play out in a pseudo real time representation. So in Birth of the Federation cloak ships literally had the first turn free with no possible reaction to them. In SE5 combat is in real time with pausing, which means as soon as a cloaked ship acts you can react to them. Basically the SE5 combat system will be able to reflect the strategic and tactical strengths of cloaking technology with out having to resorting to lame game mechanics such as in birth of the federation./threads/images/Graemlins/Flag_NewZeland.gif

Atrocities

September 5th, 2004, 05:35 AM

Spectarofdeath said:
Cloaking, yes, always get the first shot, no. If it's like that then all you'll have is another Birth of the Federation where a romulan fleet of warbirds can wipe out just about anything and everything in the first shot, without any losses. It will need some kind of balancing system, something that might let them shoot first, but only like 1/4 of their weapons, or the weapons are only at 1/4 of their true damage potential. This would give the ability to still recieve some kind of "surprise attack" but still allowing some kind of a chance for defending players. Seriously, who wants to get their fleet of 30 battleships wiped out without even firing one shot off? Sensors that can detect cloaked ships would also help, but if the option to fire on cloaked ships is given, it too should also be given a to hit penalty of some kind.

Cloak detection works to balance this out.

Colonel

September 5th, 2004, 03:17 PM

Here another idea, Complete and utter break up of an entire race of planets. Example, A race with 30 planets would break up into smaller Groups of 5 at the most. A break up would depend upon certian things, Military Protection, Amount of units per planet, economic status, and amount of enemies and\or enemy military presence

I want a way to stop something like a star destroying itself natrually, it just says basically you have 3 years to move you crap no way to stop it

Suicide Junkie

September 6th, 2004, 02:19 AM

You can prevent a nova by building a ringworld or sphereworld.

Really hard, even when you have already researched the tech, but it certainly shouldn't be easy http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif.

Colonel

September 6th, 2004, 08:35 PM

I just got a great idea, Design Flaws. If you design a ship there should be certian requirements or limits per size and hull. You would be able to pick the ship size then the type of hull (this would effectively get rid of conventional armour) the depending on you previous choices there would be a few requirements like we have now with needs a bridge engines and what not but there would be an added thing limits you could only put X percent of the ship to weapons, X percent to engines, X to sensors, X percent to shields, and so on. You could over pass certain limits like weapons but doing such would increase chances of random explosions, or ships loseing all movement, and there are proably a few more things we could add as punishment for over passing certian limits.

Anyone think this is good, ALSO this could apply to units as well as ships and bases tooo

Ed Kolis

September 6th, 2004, 10:41 PM

How about "phage" races, like the Harvesters in MOO3, which eat or otherwise cause ruin to other races' populations that are on the same planet?

edit: or assimilate/convert them into their own population, like the Borg? or highly aggressive races whose population can also serve as offensive troops, like in Stars?

Colonel

September 6th, 2004, 11:34 PM

Minor thing, I know this can be edited but then i couldnt play multiplayer games but anyway, Components for ships should be smaller, if any noticed in sci fi shows you always get these ships that can do everything, launch fighters, launch bombs, mines, along with being a bad *** fighting ship. I dont want the game to turn into a based of show game but stuff being a little smaller would help alot and make ships alot more bad ***.

Also this is a bit of eye candy but i think there should be a way to switch ship sets mid game or use different pics from multiple ship sets. What i mean is useing one pic of a base ship in game then useing a different one for another ship while the first ship holds ir orginal pic. Also i think if you retrofit an captured enemy ship it should still hold its orignal pic

September 13th, 2004, 01:08 PM

Two more ideas/suggestions:

1.) Construction/repair:
I would like a combination of the SE III/SE IV. Like in SE III you have to buy the ships/units first and pay the full amount of resources needed. Then you get the ship but with no functional components. They have to be constructed one after the other. You could switch the constructed item from one space yard to another in the same sector. Like in SE IV each component/unit/(facility?) has a different construction time. In SE IV this is equal to the resource costs, in SE V there would be a special amount of "construction effort" for each component and space yards could build XX points per turn of this construction effort. Cost and construction time could therefore be different.
And finally each component has a "repair amount" and repair bays would repair YY points per turn. That would allow you to have components that are very hard to repair and others that can be fixed quickly.
2.) Fleet shields.
Special components that create shields which protect the entire fleet. Only after the fleet shield has been depleted individual ships would be attacked (unless of course you use shield ignoring weapons).

Kiedryn

September 16th, 2004, 08:42 AM

Research points as a resources, so you can "harvest" it from for example some stellar phenomenon.

AgentZero

September 17th, 2004, 09:40 PM

Few things I'd like to see....
1) Custom Fleets. Basically, as it is, when you create a fleet in SE4, you just throw a whole bunch of ships together and off they go. What I'd like to see is several layers of fleets. The first, call it a Combat Group, would simply be several ships of a similar type grouped together so they could be more easily controlled.
The next step up would be combining two or more different Combat Groups together to Create a Task Force. In a Task Force (TF) there would always be a lead element which would be the one under the players most direct control. For example say I have one Combat Group (CG) of 4 Destroyers armed with PDCs and Interceptors (see below) and another CG of 2 Cruisers armed with heavy beam weapons. The Destroyer CG would have orders to Guard the cruisers so in combat, the player just clicks on the TF on the TF and maneouvers the whole thing as one unit. When giving orders to fire, the player can select each cruiser indvidually if they want to spread their fire between multiple targets, while the destroyers would autmatically target incoming fire.
The third step would be the Fleet which would consist of multiple Task Forces grouped together, opperating in mutual support. Obviously the Fleet would not be controlled as a single unit but could be given general orders in terms of movement and target priority. Another benefit of the Fleet would be the ability for the TFs within it to 'loan' ships to other TFs. Eg: WIthin a fleet I have a TF of 5 Dreadnoughts and 8 screening cruisers Cruisers and a 2nd TF of 5 Battle Cruisers with a 6 Light Cruiser screen. Once engaged in combat, the Dreadnough TF comes under heavy fire, but the Battle Cruiser TF is being almost ignored. The player could order the BC TF to Assist the DN TF which would cause the BCs to shift their fire to whoever was attacking the DNs, but also send their LC screen to help provide defensive fire.

2) Little one: Interceptors would be energy based weapons designed to disrupt incoming energy weapons fire. Unlike a PDC, an interceptor would only have a certain amount of damage it could disrupt. So say in Interceptor I can disrupt 10 points. If used against a weapon that does 5pts damage, then a succesful hit means no damage done. If used against a weapon capable of 20pts damage, then 10 damage is still taken.

3) Reactors. A ships reactor would give it bonuses to things like shields, speed and weapons power. Reactors in larger ships would provide larger bonuses in smaller ships. So your standard Fusion Reactor in a Destroyer wouldn't provide any bonuses, but the same reactor mounted in a Battleship would provide, for example, a 10% bonus to weapons and shields. Better reactors would give bigger bonuses, naturally.

4) Last two: Real-time combat is fine as long as it can be paused with a whack of the good ol spacebar (or any other conveniently located key). And, I'd really like to see SE3's tactical combat screen (the one where you gave all the targeting orders) make a come-back. That thing was great.

Xiziz

September 18th, 2004, 09:11 PM

Okey to be truthful i havent read all 98 pages... but i thought id leve a word in now anyway, it might have been said earlyer...

How about Capital Ships?
With a limit of 1 Per race, hand giving it a size double of what your biggest current avalible ship class... say if you can build 500kt Cruisers, you could build 1 1000kt Capital Ship. hence you could have ships that really weighed in in combat!
Offcorce the price for these would be high, probably even more than 2-4 ships of the base class(eg the 500kt cruiser in the example)
Having coustom models for the Capital ships would be nice.
And maby adding some special bonuses to these ships, like better accuracy or somthing(think that the best captain would be on it)

My second idea is just more or less to have the ability to start with no tecnology at all, eg to build a colony ship you would need to research the followig: Dome colony(for apropriate planet type)(and for it should be cheap for your type of planet, but very expensive for others), Engines(basic be that Chemical or Ion), Basic ship components(Brige, Crewqt, Lifesp), Basic Cargo bays(if you want them on your colony ship, i usually do)... and then for fighters and so on we would need weapons and sensors and so on... maby actually make sensors and computer non kt dependant(just influenses the cost)

Maby be able to select diffrent materials to build the ship out of? and have these having different properties.
ex. on a 150kt ship.
Steel: Standard, pruduses a ship at standard cost with 150kt.
Aluminium: Lighter, 160kt, all components have lower damage recistance, Higher cost.
Lead: Heavy, 140kt, all components have higher damage recistance, Higher cost.
And loads of different researchable armour/hull types ofcourse, and the increased/decreased damage resistance is to simulate base armour.

Well thats all for now http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif hope someone likes somthing of it http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

AgentZero

September 18th, 2004, 09:56 PM

Not to split hairs or anything, but Capital Ship is simply a Category into which you put your largest ship. So a destroyer is technically a capital ship if it's the biggest thing you've got. Nevertheless, I was thinking of something similar in the form of the Flagship. You would be obviously be allowed only one Flagship per fleet. Designating a ship as the flagship would give it a large boost to all its stats (shields, engines, weapons, etc) and also give a lesser, but still signifcant boost to all the other ships in the fleet.

In terms of doubling the size of the ship, I'm not too sure about that, but it does lead me into another point I wanted to make which was that in SE4 I don't really think there's enough difference in the size of ships. I currently play with my own mod which starts out with an Escort (which I've renamed Corvette. I think all the old SE4 beta testers remember my feelings on the topic ;-) ) at the usual 150kt, but a Dreadnought weighs in at 12000kt. And I tell ya, they may be prohibitively expensive and take ages to build, but one of those babies is all it takes to seriously ruin someone's day.

AgentZero

September 18th, 2004, 10:26 PM

Ooops... Dang wireless keyboard somehow posted that before I was done. Maybe it's just trying to tell me I shouldn't be posting at 2am.

Anyway, a couple more points before I meander off.
I'd like to see the current ship hulls split into 3 different categories, and maybe see a few new ones. The 3 hull categories would be Escort, Ship-Of-The-Wall, and Capital Ship. In the Escort Class you would have the Corvette, Frigate and Destroyer; SOTW would be Light Cruiser, Cruiser and Battle Cruiser, and Capital Ships would be Battleship, Dreadnought and please please please could I have a Superdreadnought this time around? Your initial shipyards would be able to build only Escort-class ships, and would require upgrading in order to build each succesive class. Planetary Shipyards would only be able to build up to SOTW-class ships, unless someone can tell me out to get a 12,000kt dreadnougt off the ground.

This leads me into my idea about orbita spaceyards. Basically, when you're designing a spaceyard you would have to decide how much space would be taken up by shields, defensive weapons, and SY/repair bays, and how much would be taken up by 'Modules Mounts'. What a Module Mount is should be obvious, and the Module itself would simply be something that you designed like a station, only smaller, and it would fit onto an existing station. So, for example, I build a space station with just a bridge/crew quarters/life support, basic shielding, and 4 Module Mounts. I design a seperate Module containing a Space Yard and Repair Bay, build one of each, slot them together, and voila! I have a working space yard which I set to work building Destroyers. Some time later, I discover the Light Cruiser hull, which is a Ship-of-the-Wall. But SOTW-class ships require a station with at least two SY components, so I build another SY Module and attach it to my existing station. I then decide the station could use a production boost so I build a third SY Module to start cranking out those LCs a bit faster. Then, realizing that this is the only station I have that can build LCs, I decide to improve its defenses and build a Module filled with Weapons and shields, and add that to the station.

Of course, Battle Stations and Starbases, being much larger, could also accomodate a lot more Module Mounts. In fact, I was just thinking, one could design a Module that held 2-3 Module Mounts in order to create massive, sprawling space yards that could build big ships very quickly, and even work on several at a time, which is where the Module idea really comes into its own. If, for example, a LC needs a station with 2 SY comps and can be worked on by a maximum of 3, and I have a station with 9 SY comps, I would just have to pull up the build queue for that station, tell it to build 3 LCs, and it would autmatically begin simultaneous production of them. I think this would remove a lot of the hassle from trying to build large numbers of ships quite quickly.
It would also create the situation where an empire would have only a few centralized construction areas where their biggest, most powerful ships could be built. So, during a war, a bit of sabotage or a carefully timed surgical strike could have devastating effects on an opponent.

More later after I've had some sleep...

brianeyci

September 22nd, 2004, 03:52 PM

tmce, can't a lot of the changes you mentioned be made by editing the .txt files in SE:IV?

AgentZero

September 22nd, 2004, 05:15 PM

Not really, as far as the SY idea goes, since as far as I know, the restriction of 1 SY per Station isn't an editable attribute, which mean that even if it is possible to put a restriction like 'Requires a station with 2 SY comps for construction' could be added to SE4, there would be no way to implement it since a single station cannot have 2 SYs anyway. And if anyone knows how to make a component that can store other components which would actually exceed a Station's (or ship's) max tonnage, please tell me how to do it.

tesco samoa

September 22nd, 2004, 06:12 PM

hey... another thread gave me this idea

Base happiness stuff on %

Ie... instead of losing 1 ship costing this much

make it losing 1 % of your ships will cost this much

Same with planets etc.....

Colonel

September 22nd, 2004, 07:11 PM

PLanet Stability:I think it can be assumed that not all planets are going to have the same contiental plates and on some planets the contiental plates would move alot faster then on earth causeing earthquakes, and cutting down on the amount of structures possible on planet.

Next, I think it should be alot harder and take alot longer to set up colonies. If you think about even if there was a wormhole thingy in the Real earth solor system it would still take awhile for us to be able to build up the resourses and find the best spot on the planet to set up the inital colony. You can't just plop down anywhere on the planet and hope to succeed.

This is an AI thing, In the Resarch txt thing it is set up to make all AI research shields, weapons, Ship Contruction, but that is SOOOOO unrealistic, Instead it should have different AI research patterns depending on gameplay, Examples
If a race has lots of Mining Colonies they should devolpe Mining technology.
Or if a race is stuck by itself with no contact with other races, they shouldnt devolpe to high technology. I think you guys will understand that.

TNZ

September 23rd, 2004, 04:01 AM

Will SE5 have the ability to generate a resource based on population level, for example, a population of 100m people = 100 resource points (manpower, currency)?

AgentZero

September 23rd, 2004, 04:00 PM

I just posted a big ol' tirade about manpower and money at http://games.Groups.yahoo.com/group/SE4/message/5655
Feel free to comment.

bearclaw

September 23rd, 2004, 08:52 PM

TNZ said:
Will SE5 have the ability to generate a resource based on population level, for example, a population of 100m people = 100 resource points (manpower, currency)?

They will be moddable yes. Aaron has said that there will be room for 5 moddable resources that we will have the ability to change around. And if I understand it correctly, we will have a HUGE amount of play-ability in what we can do with these. The stock game will still have the standard 3 that we are familiar with.

Ed Kolis

September 24th, 2004, 09:58 AM

Really? When did he say we'd have moddable resources? The data files he showed us had the regular 3 resources, not anything like this:

<code>
Cost Num Resources := 3
Cost Resource 1 Resource := Minerals
Cost Resource 1 Amount := 1000
Cost Resource 2 Resource := Organics
Cost Resource 2 Amount := 500
Cost Resource 3 Resource := Radioactives
Cost Resource 3 Amount := 500
</code>

Of course that would be rather unwieldy for *every* *single* *component* *and* *facility*, so perhaps Aaron figured out how to make moddable field names! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Patroklos

September 24th, 2004, 09:32 PM

I would like to see CivIII style resources. We would still have setup we have now for general use, but the Civ type resouces would be for the more exotic stuff. Would add another layer of stategy.

And please make warp engines a component.

Ed Kolis

September 24th, 2004, 09:53 PM

I've probably mentioned this before, but I'd like to be able to export and import a list of vehicle designs (both your own and other races') to a file in a similar format as the other SE5 data files. This way you could share designs between various .emp's and also run programs on the exported data. The format I might expect to look like this, assuming SE5 uses SF's slot model for designs and mounts are built into vehicle sizes rather than specified by the player during vehicle design:

Code:<hr /><pre>
Name := Paladin III
Owner Empire Number := 3
Owner Empire Name := Chozo
Owner Empire Type := Dominion
Vehicle Type := Ship
Vehicle Size := Battleship
Num Slots Used := 32
Slot Used 1 Name := Inner Hull 1
Slot Used 1 Comp Name := Bridge
Slot Used 1 Comp Level := 5
Slot Used 2 Name := Inner Hull 2
Slot Used 2 Comp Name := Life Support
Slot Used 2 Comp Level := 6
Slot Used 3 Name := Inner Hull 3
Slot Used 3 Comp Name := Crew Quarters
Slot Used 3 Comp Level := 5
Slot Used 4 Name := Engine 1
Slot Used 4 Comp Name := Quantum Impulse Engine
Slot Used 4 Comp Level := 10
...
</pre><hr />

Though I would like to see the ability to also use mounts at design time; perhaps there should be Mounts (specified in the vehicle size definition) and Mods (which function like SE4's Mounts, or maybe like MOO2's Mods, in which more than one could be applied but some were mutually exclusive! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/eek.gif) Or if you don't like the name Mods meaning two different things, you could call the built-in ones (like Battleship Scale Mount) Hard Mounts and the customizable ones (like Accuracy Enhancement) Soft Mounts or something... or maybe Hardpoint Mounts and Design Mounts??? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

Also, I'd like to see the copy and upgrade buttons work on alien designs so you can duplicate your opponents' designs if you have the same or higher tech.

Oh, speaking of mounts again - assuming SE5 even HAS them, I'd like to see the option to either specify for a mount a specific list of vehicle sizes that it can be used on, or vice versa, just so we don't have to worry about ships falling into the wrong size ranges - oh no, my new 350kT Courier Transport accidentally got the Picket Ship Scale Mount applied because that mount applies to ships between 200kT Frigates and 400kT Light Cruisers! But I wanted it to get a special transport mount! (Boy ain't I picky... feel free to ignore my suggestions http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif)

Fyron

September 24th, 2004, 10:58 PM

Patroklos said:
I would like to see CivIII style resources. We would still have setup we have now for general use, but the Civ type resouces would be for the more exotic stuff. Would add another layer of stategy.

And please make warp engines a component.

Ugh please no. All that the resources in Civ 3 do is screw you over if you don't find a few critical ones. Lacking resources such as Iron or Oil will prevent you from building most of the units for a long chunk of the game... Not fun to fight people with knights and pikemen when all you can make are spearmen and archers...

Aiken

September 25th, 2004, 04:56 AM

Ed Kolis said:
Code:<hr /><pre>
Name := Paladin III
Owner Empire Number := 3
Owner Empire Name := Chozo
Owner Empire Type := Dominion
Vehicle Type := Ship
Vehicle Size := Battleship
Num Slots Used := 32
Slot Used 1 Name := Inner Hull 1
Slot Used 1 Comp Name := Bridge
Slot Used 1 Comp Level := 5
...
</pre><hr />

I'd add this line:
Slot Used 1 Mount Code := LSM

Oh, speaking of mounts again - assuming SE5 even HAS them, I'd like to see the option to either specify for a mount a specific list of vehicle sizes that it can be used on, or vice versa, just so we don't have to worry about ships falling into the wrong size ranges - oh no, my new 350kT Courier Transport accidentally got the Picket Ship Scale Mount applied because that mount applies to ships between 200kT Frigates and 400kT Light Cruisers!

Ummm, why don't you like this:
Long Name := Somemount
...
Vehicle Size Minimum := 200
Vehicle Size Maximum := 200
for each ship size? Quite tedious, but it works.

Although it will be best to use something like this:

Name := Dreadnought
...
Vehicle Type := Ship
...
Restricted/Allowed Mounts := 0/HSM,UbW,HEF,Blahblah
Restricted/Allowed Comp Families : = 12,63,256/0

in the future VehicleSize.txt.

Fyron

September 25th, 2004, 01:00 PM

Ummm, why don't you like this:
Long Name := Somemount
...
Vehicle Size Minimum := 200
Vehicle Size Maximum := 200
for each ship size? Quite tedious, but it works.

Exactly because it _is_ tedious, and error prone. Better to have the possibility of comma separated lists (in addition to min and max size type fields, all optional).

Colonel

September 25th, 2004, 07:33 PM

Ok, I have a big AI thing. I was playing around with the design name txt and i went and turned off the AI on a race after a few turns to see the order the ai used the names. Anyways when i was playing the AI race i noticed something, a planet set up to be a mining colony, nothing to amazing until you look at the value of the planet. 3% mineral value, and yet it would have been the perfect planet for a farming colony http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif granted this was set on easy for this test but still.

AgentZero

September 26th, 2004, 07:24 AM

Restricted/Allowed Mounts := 0/HSM,UbW,HEF,Blahblah
Restricted/Allowed Comp Families : = 12,63,256/0

See, this I like. I think it would be best if we specified which mounts/comps were Restricted, otherwise one would have to list every comp family a ship was able to use. But if we were able to restrict comps to a certain class of ship, it could make things rather interesting. For example, you could create a cargo component that can provides twice as much cargo space than the normal one, but can only be mounted on Transport hulls, and I'm sure everyone can think of plenty of other examples.

One thing I'm thinking about these moddable resources... There would need to be an option along the lines of 'Accumulates on Planet Only' in order for us to create rare, special resources that are only available from certain planets. Also, if the concept of Crew doesn't make it into the stock game, the ability to create resources that only accumulate on the planet, and don't go into the galactic pool, would be vital.

Tanus

September 26th, 2004, 03:38 PM

Ok, I thought of two things, though I can only remember one of them http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

I'd like the ability to edit orders.

It's always frustrating when you set up a bunch of orders for a ship, and then find you made a mistake, and loaded cargo from the wrong planet. Currently, you have to clear and remake the entire order string - I'd like the ability to go in and just edit that one specific order.

Colonel

September 27th, 2004, 11:22 PM

This is a slightly harder to implament idea. Ship limitations should be based on the desin of the outer hull. A star trek type ship would have a lower amount of possible engines as they hang out to the side. While a ship in a tube shape, and engines in the back could go faster as well as haveing more engines. This would require TxT file for each ship model, and this would make ship set modding.
Any thoughts or refinements to this idea

AgentZero

September 28th, 2004, 04:34 PM

Colonel said:
Ship limitations should be based on the desin of the outer hull. A star trek type ship would have a lower amount of possible engines as they hang out to the side. While a ship in a tube shape, and engines in the back could go faster as well as haveing more engines.

I think this is an interesting idea, though technically in space there's no reason a Star Trek type ship couldn't mount just as many engines as a 'tubular' ship, as long as the struts connecting the engines to the ship were strong enough to cope with the stresses. Though this leads me into another thought...

In SE5, there should be a lot more variety in the racial setup screens. The current 'points' system should stay, but I'd like to see a system where players would have a vast array of options that didn't cost them any points, but had a good side/downside balance. An example inspired by the above would be 'External' 'Normal' or 'Internal' Engines. Normal would provide no bonuses or drawbacks, Internal would provide engines with a higher damage resistance at the cost of less available space for other components (easily simulated by increasing the size of the engines) and External engines would have a considerably lower damage resistance, but leave more space available for other components. Basically, if we took SE4s Cultural Modifiers but gave them all a pro/con (and added a whole bunch more exotic ones) then players could pick and choose through all kinds of categories to create genuinely unique races.

AgentZero

September 28th, 2004, 05:25 PM

Oh, & just posted this tirade over on the SE4 mailing list...

Personally I just can't understand how anyone can think that inter-species trade without a single agreed form of currency would be possible. The argument is made that the existing resources are the currency of trade but they're not. They're raw materials. How many countries trade soley with raw materials even today? I bet you could count them on one hand, but only if you didn't have any fingers (or a thumb!) My argument in favour of money can be exemplified by looking at Britain.
As we all know, Britain was at one point the most powerful empire the world has ever seen. They virtually unrivalled in their superiority. Sure they were challanged, but look how that ended. Now, did Britain have enormous reserves of raw resources?
No.
She imported virtually everything. And how did she accomplish this? By building a vast trading empire that brought in vast ammounts of, you guessed it, MONEY! By importing raw resources from her colonies, refining them, and selling the finished product (obviously at considerably higher cost than the materials alone) to other countries, Britain made lots and lots and lots of money. And with all this money, she paid for her soldiers, guns, cannons and ships that kept the empire together. (Her downfall was becoming to confident in her superiority and allowing other nations a surpass her in new technologies, which resulted in her beginning to be an importer of finished products, instead of an exporter but that's a whole different topic).
Now, is an economy like that possible in SE5?
No.
Why? Because it just doesn't work without money. But it would be fantastic in SE5. It would allow smaller empires and minor races to actually compete, by building up their trading infrastructre. An example of how it might work:
On a planet, preferably one already producing a high income level, the player builds a Trade Centre. This allows the planet to be 'connected' to any planet belonging to a neutral/allied race. After a certain number of turns spent 'establishing' the trade route, it would begin producing income which would be a factor of the two planets' average income with a distance factor thrown into the equation to make things interesting (after all, exotic goods from far away fetch a higher price than those available from the local grocery store). Then facilities like Manufacturing Centre (uses a certain amount of resources each turn but boosts trade income by X%), could be built. Others like Galactic Bank, Foreign Exchange, Distribution Centre, etc could be built which would all boost the trade income. Resarch in trade technology could also provide a boost. Tricky thing is though, the income boost is for you only. So say you have a trade route pulling in 10 Galactic Credits a turn. The empire you have the trade route with, all other factors being equal, also makes 10GC a turn. But, after building a bunch of the above facilities, the total bonus for that route is say, 100%. So, that trade route is now making you 20GC a turn, while the other guy still only gets 10. AND, if all the trade facilities you build also increase the income earned from the planet, the net increase will be even more!

So, what it all boils down to is that with money in SE5, small empires, with a bit of shrewd negotiation would be able to make large ammounts of money which could they could then buy raw resources required to build the ships needed to protect themselves from those not interested in trading. And given how much we all love the underdog, is that really something you'd like to have missing from SE5?

Karibu

September 29th, 2004, 04:45 AM

This would be nice addition for SEV. A facility (ie. huge linear accelerator which goes through planet) which would allow to move a planet. For example, 1 sector in a turn. Of course, the cost of the facility would have to be at least equal to system gravity shield, so it would be not easy or effortless to do it.

Think, what kind of defence it would be to locate all planets in a system above the only warp point. 1000 WP:s to fire against attacking fleet before they get a shot http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Atrocities

September 29th, 2004, 04:50 AM

The option to customize your own homeworld. Set the look, the color, the clouds, the sea's, etc.

twilight

September 29th, 2004, 06:48 PM

We can spend research and intelligence points on projects. A third nice thing would be economy points, produced by banks or traders.

There could be a kind of counter-economy-project (like the counter-intelligence), trying to disturb other econmies. Perhaps after success of own projects you get ressources or a nice boost of research, or you force a certain ai to make a better treaty, so the trade values raises and whatever. Perhaps some projects could improve the relations to other peoples or force another race to make peace with you because of the economical situation.

To buy out another empire planet by planet, ship by ship would be another idea, but not a good one if you ask me. But I would mod it away, so please feel free to do it http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Sorry if someone wrote similar ideas. Please don't expect someone to read that 100! pages http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

twilight

September 29th, 2004, 06:57 PM

When I played the humans I tried to rename the system into Sol. Hmhm, not possible. To rename systems would be a nice and neccessary option for fun I think. But in this moment I had another idea:

Imagine, you don't only customize a race's abilites and whatever. You also customize their home system. Imagine to play the human race and in what universe ever you created, the home system is Sol. There are 1 to x Warppoints and they lead to a completely unknown world, but your home is the same.

clark

September 30th, 2004, 12:01 PM

Suggestions once more, sorry for any repeats...

The ability to name just about anything in-game. Solar systems, planets (as with SEIV), etc. etc.

The ability to classify enemy ships. Right now, with SE4, all the enemy ships appear in one long list. After contact, let us see the breakdown of classification as we see with our own ships. Let us be able to click on an enemy ship in the solar system view and have it pull up any info we have related to it (size, weapons, etc.)

Make this an option on set up, ships in an enemy fleet are not shown with a total number, but a guess of how many are in there (1-5, 6-10, 11-20, 21-40, etc.) This way fleets can have another tactical advantage- this might also allow for long range sensors to act as counter, thus increasing their value.

If possible, instead of trying to guess what all should be included in the text files, try to make it open ended so that the user can define what the lines do themselves. Not sure how to go about it, but perhaps there is a way that the user can define what "general restrictions/enable 1,2,3 etc" means.

Again, try to include user defined resources so we can change the pics of the exsisting resources and add more. Allow us to change the name of the resources so we can call it "money" or "industry" instead of organics or radioactives. It's just a label afterall, give it to us. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif If at all possible, allow us to include more user defines resources- they don't have to be used in the stock game, and they probably shouldn't, but the option will allow for more variety and greater ability for the creativity of the Users to flourish.

I'm glad to hear the change in intel, but please put a direct link to it on the main screen like tech in SE4. Hiding it in diplomacy can be a bother since it adds in an extra click. Perhaps from a UI perspective you might allow a right click on an enemy ship/planet/whatever to link to an option to target an intel project against that particular thing. With SE4, I often have to write down the name of the ship or planet that I want to target.

Spice up ground combat to include options to train troops (have it mean something). Ships have experience, so should troops. If at all possible, use the SEIV space combat system for SEV ground combat (or even the SEV space combat system if that is doable)

Empire wide facilities similar to system wide facilities.

Another alternative to population/cargo transport micromanagement is to instutite an invisible cargo system whereby the user selects a planet and then selects a destination, the computer calculates a time penalty to figure out how long it takes for that cargo/population to move to the destination (or it could just be a user defined flat rate of X turns by warp point distance). Perhaps it can be constructed so that in game, players can build invisible "transport fleets" that allow for greater amounts of cargo to be moved, or at faster rates. There are quite a few options with that. The point being, you handle the resources in a similar manner- space ports magically dumps all your resources whereever you need them in SE4, so why not apply the same logic to people and cargo in a slightly different manner.

The above will help decrease the micro-management that can detract from some of the larger games (or when you have umpteen races)

Fyron

September 30th, 2004, 03:27 PM

There is no need to be sorry for repeats...

Colonel

October 3rd, 2004, 04:03 PM

Have a tech that would allow certian sized ships to split apart in or out of combat, You could spilt manually or do it automatically where the computer would take 1/2 or 1/3 of ship depending on how many sections it splits into.

Weapons Idea.
I think thier should be certian weapons (mainly missle types, These types of weapons would make the shields drop for X number of turns and then reraise, this would eventually be over run by tech.

Kana

October 3rd, 2004, 10:39 PM

I would like to see the ability to pick which satellite, fighter or drone to launch, and how many...

I would like to have available the ability to make different types of munitions (ie missle types) for weapons with the munitions trait. That way you can program a type of weapon (missle rack), with so many shots available (magazine of say 4 or 6 missiles), and then be able to load the weapon with all of the same munition type, or multiple types...and maybe an option to pick which munition to use, or the order that they will be fired in.

Thanks,

Kana
In quest of options for an Star Fleet Battles type mod...

Tanus

October 4th, 2004, 11:18 PM

I also would like to have more of a SEIII type construction - lay down the hull, and then build it up from there.
That would add a whole new element and purpose in small "lightning strikes" to wipe out hulls in progress.

But to balance this (so that you can't lay the hull and complete in 1 turn with tons of repair facilities), it should combine SEIII and IV styles.

Where in SEIV it may take 6 turns to build the ship, then it appears fully complete in orbit, the hull should appear in orbit first turn, then take an additional 5 turns to complete, regardless of how many stacked repair facilities you have. The ship would still be 'being built', and use up 1 space yard for that time, but the ship would be in orbit and vulnerable.

eg. You decide to build battlecruiser A, which will take 5 turns. Next turn a BC hull appears in orbit, maybe with a counter on it - 4 turns remaining. Next turn, 3 turns remaining... etc, until it is complete, and then fully functional