Proportions Mod Versions 2.5.2 and 2.5.3 available

[PvK]

Proportions Mod Versions 2.5.2 and 2.5.3 are now available for download from the Proportions web page (http://g2.latibulum.com/pvk/proportions/).

(Note than games in progress with many remote mining bases may want to upgrade to 2.5.2 rather than 2.5.3, if avoidance of disruption and balance issues is desired.)

Changes Log:
============

Version 2.5.3:

--------------------------
Remote Mining Adjustments:
--------------------------
* This Version is designed for newly started games, or for games where it
is accepted by players that large bases filled with remote miner
components will no longer be allowed. It is suggested that any pre-
existing bases with more than two remote miner components, should be
retrofitted to designs obeying the new limits. For players who want
to continue games without this disruption to remote mining production,
use of Proportions Version 2.5.2 is suggested.
* Added restriction on remote miner components per unit to two, halved
structure, and doubled size of ship/base Versions (compared to 2.5.1).
This prevents massively productive mining bases, which were possible
before but were unintentionally overproductive. It also presents
interesting choices between ship, base and satellite miner designs.
Pre-existing bases in upgraded games will retain their former abilities
(except structure, and bases upgraded from 2.5.2, which would be half
as productive).
* Remote mining now does not reduce value in unlimited resources games.

Version 2.5.2:

--------------------------
Remote Mining Adjustments:
--------------------------
* This Version is designed to upgrade with minimal disturbance to existing
games which may already include signifigant numbers of remote mining
battlestations. It doesn't fully correct the problem with the extreme
production from remote mining bases. It does prohibit filling starbases
with remote miner components, but pre-existing miner-filled starbases
will still operate. It is suggested that such starbases be retrofitted
with the new components, which will limit their production to about that
of a battle station filled with miner components.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Changes for smoother upgrades for existing games using 2.4.2:
-------------------------------------------------------------
* The Fighter Carriers tech added in 2.5 now costs more, is expanded in
both directions to five levels (using the Tiny and Massive carrier images
from the SE4 Image Neo-Standard) and provides improved classes compared
to the standard carriers. Existing carriers have their costs and to-hit
penalties somewhat increased. The five new carrier classes are Escort
Carrier, Advanced Light Carrier, Advanced Carrier, Advanced Heavy Carrier,
and Super-Heavy Carrier.
* Pre-existing special armors downgraded to compensate for their
ability compared to the new armors that require specialized research, and
to compensate for changes to Emissive Armor from Gold patch Version 1.78.
Unlike 2.5 & 2.5.1, they can now continue to be deployed, and may be good
choices for large ships (since they don't use Scale mounts and so will be
smaller on large ships).
---------
Gameplay:
---------
* Added six levels to the new Stealth Armor tech area, allowing eventual
(expensive) blocking of all Active and Passive EM scans.
* Added a new "Fast Colony Ships" tech area, for players who wish to develop
somewhat faster colony ships.
* Added a new "Massive Base Ship" class.
* Added nine more population modifier brackets to smooth curve for fully
populated worlds (5% jumps every 500M rather than 10% every 1000M).
------
Fixes:
------
* Fixed crippling Sergetti design bug - thanks to Oleg again!
---------
Cosmetic:
---------
* Added a new image for the Arcology facility, created for Proportions by
Bill Elliott (aka mlmbd) - thanks Bill!
* Added generic worldship images from SE4 Image Neo-Standard Expansion Pack.
* Fixed minor typo in to-hit description of some ships (said "base").
* It is highly recommended that players install the SE4 Image Neo-Standard
Expansion Pack available from www.sandman43.fsnet.co.uk/neostandexpansion.htm (http://www.sandman43.fsnet.co.uk/neostandexpansion.htm)

PvK

[mlmbd]

Oh, goodie! Thank You, PvK!

<font color=purple>mlmbd http://www.shrapnelgames.com//ubb/icons/icon6.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif </font>

[ZeroAdunn]

Excellent!

So, when are you going to make it fully Neostandard compliant???? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[PvK]

Maybe 3.0. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Edit:
Although... what does that mean? I think the Neo-Standard is just a naming convention for any types the mod might add. I don't think the Neo-Standard says "all mods should include all these types". So, I think the only way to not be "Neo-Standard compliant", would be to include a ship that is clearly like something in the Neo-Standard, but then ask for a picture called something else (e.g. "FunShipPic"). So in that case, Proportions has been "Neo-Standard compliant" for most or all of its existence. There are a couple of types Proportions has that don't match anything in the Neo-Standard: Starliner and StarlinerLarge, for instance, and InfantryElite.

PvK

[ February 07, 2003, 17:18: Message edited by: PvK ]

[oleg]

Now that AI uses master computers, the whole Computers tech. branch is a no-go to AI... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

PvK, can you please reduce accuracy penalty on MC ? They are way too harsh, IMHO. Or can you separate MC and Robotoid factories, for example by introducing a separate research area ?

[Fyron]

Those accuracy bonuses to MC don't even make sense. A computer can easily keep track of more things than people can.

[oleg]

Agree. You spend a fortune of research points and get an expensive component that makes your ships a sitting duck. Not to mention computer virus. The only argument is the protection against psychic races but it basically makes MC a very specialised thing worthless 90% of the game.

[PvK]

For the AI's sake I agree it would make sense to make master computers a seperate tech.

I should proabably revisit master computers a bit, but the point of the penalty is that I do not agree that a computer makes as good a warrior as a martial-minded biological. As we all know, AI's tend to be predictable and unable to adapt to the unpredictable complexities of an evolving tactical situation.

This has nothing to do with target tracking. That is covered by combat sensors and multiplex tracking, which can be used by humans or computers alike. The combat penalties for MC represent the very real factors that are beneath the scale of SE4's combat engine to represent in detail, but which would in my opinion make experiencd biological crews more formidable than computers. Ingenuity, innovation, unpredictability, will to survive, etc.

Also, I think master computers should definitely NOT have the "ability to gain experience". Relative ability arguments notwithstanding, with a computer, if it could learn, there would be no reason you couldn't download and broadcast its data to other computers, and have all master computers at the same experience level. It's not possible to mod that, nor to mod away their learning ability. The penalties therefore also compensate for this silly ability of master computers.

However, if you do climb to the top of the master computer tech tree, the penalties are only -5/-2.

PvK

[Spoo]

Originally posted by PvK:
if it could learn, there would be no reason you couldn't download and broadcast its data to other computers, and have all master computers at the same experience level. It's not possible to mod that, nor to mod away their learning ability.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What about the neural combat net (I think that's what it's called). That allows sharing of experience.

[Phoenix-D]

Spoo is right I think..just give any MC the same ability the Neural Combat Net has, and any MC in combat will have the same experience as the highest-rated MC..at least until that MC is destroyed.

Phoenix-D

[PvK]

Well, except that:

1) It would only apply to ships in the same battle. In reality, it computer data should be transmittable throughout an empire, or at least permanently shared by physical transfer.

2) When the most experienced ship is destroyed, all the others would decline in experience, which wouldn't make any sense.

3) It would allow computers to use the experience of biological crews, and it would also allow empires who have an actual neural combat net, to use the computer ships' experience for their biologically-crewed ships.

PvK

[Ed Kolis]

Hmm, I see that the remote miner components still say they decrease asteroid value, even though you turned that off in settings.txt...

[Fyron]

PvK, that is assuming that those biologicals are never able to develop more effecient computers than we have today. The first Master Computer component does not represent a computer of today's technology, it represents a far more advanced and sophisticated computer.

[oleg]

Even now, there are simple "neural net computers" capable to learn on specified tasks. Friend of mine is working on one such project for protein structure predictions. As computers getting faster and faster, there is no reasons they won't be eventually as good as biological computers - humans.

[Graeme Dice]

Originally posted by PvK:
The combat penalties for MC represent the very real factors that are beneath the scale of SE4's combat engine to represent in detail, but which would in my opinion make experiencd biological crews more formidable than computers. Ingenuity, innovation, unpredictability, will to survive, etc.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What it doesn't represent however, is the fact that a computer is faster and sturdier than a lifeform. Maneuvers that would smush crewmembers into goo would have little effect on a machine.

[PvK]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
PvK, that is assuming that those biologicals are never able to develop more effecient computers than we have today. The first Master Computer component does not represent a computer of today's technology, it represents a far more advanced and sophisticated computer.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, I'm not assuming that computers won't be more efficient than computers are today. Of course they will. What I'm saying, is that a computer-directed ship won't be better than a human-directed ship, with computers in a supporting role.

I am also following much sci-fi in this. None of the sci-fi I am familiar with has computers superior fleet commanders to biologicals.

PvK

[PvK]

Originally posted by oleg:
Even now, there are simple "neural net computers" capable to learn on specified tasks. Friend of mine is working on one such project for protein structure predictions. As computers getting faster and faster, there is no reasons they won't be eventually as good as biological computers - humans.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, I myself have programmed AI's, and am familiar with the principles of "neural networks", and other attempts to model intelligence, and I am completely unconvinced. Humans are not "biological computers", and there are plenty of reasons why computer speed will not magically achieve intelligence.

Speaking of sci-fi, most of the sci-fi I am aware of that features intelligent computers in command of armed military equipment, has those computers seize control and try to wipe out the biologicals. That's something else I'd mod in if I could, but I can't.

PvK

[PvK]

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by PvK:
The combat penalties for MC represent the very real factors that are beneath the scale of SE4's combat engine to represent in detail, but which would in my opinion make experiencd biological crews more formidable than computers. Ingenuity, innovation, unpredictability, will to survive, etc.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What it doesn't represent however, is the fact that a computer is faster and sturdier than a lifeform. Maneuvers that would smush crewmembers into goo would have little effect on a machine.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">True. Ideally, I'd like to give computer-only ships some different advantages and weaknesses beyond the few that are possible to mod.

PvK

[PvK]

Originally posted by Ed Kolis:
Hmm, I see that the remote miner components still say they decrease asteroid value, even though you turned that off in settings.txt...<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Where do they say that?

[Fyron]

Originally posted by PvK:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
PvK, that is assuming that those biologicals are never able to develop more effecient computers than we have today. The first Master Computer component does not represent a computer of today's technology, it represents a far more advanced and sophisticated computer.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, I'm not assuming that computers won't be more efficient than computers are today. Of course they will. What I'm saying, is that a computer-directed ship won't be better than a human-directed ship, with computers in a supporting role.

I am also following much sci-fi in this. None of the sci-fi I am familiar with has computers superior fleet commanders to biologicals.

PvK</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Sci-fi is not realistic at all. There will come a point when AIs are as intelligent as biologicals. We will eventually be able to make artificial computers that function exactly like the human brain, if not more effecient. Such technology will definitely come long before any technology to establish a colony in another star system.

[oleg]

Originally posted by PvK:

I am also following much sci-fi in this. None of the sci-fi I am familiar with has computers superior fleet commanders to biologicals.

PvK[/QB]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">In Asimov' works robots are much better humans than most of us http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[PvK]

Well I guess I disagree with Fryon and Asimov in those predictions. I also think it's highly inadvisable to actually create autonomous machines with "superior intelligence", not to mention giving them control of one's weapons...

PvK

[Fyron]

It is no worse than training people to use those weapons. Wait, it is better, because you can make the basic core of their programming designed so that they will obey you, and can not act to harm you.

[PsychoTechFreak]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
It is no worse than training people to use those weapons. Wait, it is better, because you can make the basic core of their programming designed so that they will obey you, and can not act to harm you.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I think an AI with the capacity of a human brain and more would definitely be able to circumvent every program barrier in order to adapt to new situations, a feature that we call "learning". The only thing that I could imagine is to program a kind of conscience, but that has failed for human brains, so it will have to fail for computers also.

[Fyron]

The only thing that I could imagine is to program a kind of conscience, but that has failed for human brains, so it will have to fail for computers also.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">People do have a conscience. Most people listen to it occasionally. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[PvK]

Laugh laugh laugh...

[Baron Munchausen]

Originally posted by PvK:
For the AI's sake I agree it would make sense to make master computers a seperate tech.

I should proabably revisit master computers a bit, but the point of the penalty is that I do not agree that a computer makes as good a warrior as a martial-minded biological. As we all know, AI's tend to be predictable and unable to adapt to the unpredictable complexities of an evolving tactical situation.

This has nothing to do with target tracking. That is covered by combat sensors and multiplex tracking, which can be used by humans or computers alike. The combat penalties for MC represent the very real factors that are beneath the scale of SE4's combat engine to represent in detail, but which would in my opinion make experiencd biological crews more formidable than computers. Ingenuity, innovation, unpredictability, will to survive, etc.

Also, I think master computers should definitely NOT have the "ability to gain experience". Relative ability arguments notwithstanding, with a computer, if it could learn, there would be no reason you couldn't download and broadcast its data to other computers, and have all master computers at the same experience level. It's not possible to mod that, nor to mod away their learning ability. The penalties therefore also compensate for this silly ability of master computers.

However, if you do climb to the top of the master computer tech tree, the penalties are only -5/-2.

PvK<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">There are several different factors involved in combat effectiveness, and the problem with the MC vs. 'biological' minds is that these cannot be modeled in SE IV combat, as you say PvK.

The thing that most everyone else thinks is important is sheer detail management -- tracking targets, calculating how much ordinance to throw at those targets based on expected hit ratio and damage that should be done, calculating how to maneuver for a good shot and/or to avoid being hit by enemy weapons, etc. These are all essentially about tactics and the one type of 'biological' mind that we know (ourselves) does tend to be less effective at tactical detail than a 'mechanical' mind. Thus the use of computers in almost all combat vehicles today, and many civilian vehicles.

You seem to feel that strategy and creative problem solving, 'thinking outside the box', is more important than tactical detail management. I certainly agree that in abstruse areas like ship design (balancing fuel capacity, engine power, defenses, weapons, etc...) the biological mind seems to be much superior. But what you do not consider is that actual combat is a small subset of the expansive 'real world' situation where the biological mind can find ways to work around the limitations of the mechanical mind. Once you get into actual combat it's all about speed, distance, and intersecting the enemy location(s) with your weapons while avoiding their weapons. I think that a machine will always be far superior at this limited task than any biological mind as we know them. (But who knows... maybe there is some 'super-sensory' race out there who can track a dozen moving targets at once and calculate ballistic trajectories in their heads? We definitely don't want to piss them off, if so... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ) On the other hand, the opportunity for 'creative' solutions in the time it takes a dreadnaught to close in and vaporize you with massive mount PPBs is pretty small. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

It makes sense for the early MC to be very ineffective. All technologies take time to mature. But I think it's unfair not to allow the MC to become as good as biological crews at some point. I do agree that we should be able to have a computer that does NOT gain experience, though. There's a difference between remote/robotic piloted ships and true AI control. Only the very top-end of the computer techs should have learning computers. Yet Another Request for MM. Will he ever implement this, and a zillion other small requests?

[ February 09, 2003, 22:00: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

[PvK]

I emphasized strategy (meaning, decision-making) because I think that is the difference between a Master Computer ship and biologically commanded ship. As I said before I think the biologically commanded ship will have just as many computer aids for tracking targets and making tactical suggestions as a computer one will. The difference is who/what makes the decisions about what to do and when, and I think that computer behaviour will continue to be more predictable and less inspired than a skilled biological commander with insights and abilities to understand beyond formulae. Tactical formulae can produce options for the biological commander on the biological ship too, but the biological gets to use his brain to override mistakes that algorithms won't always be able to catch. Etc.

Mainly, though, I don't have many choices about how to mod this in SE4. SE4 does not give me a way to eliminate or alter the training mechanic for master computers. If I could, I might give computers some bonus, but take away their ability to gain experience, so skilled biologicals could potentially out-do them. But that can't be modded. Given my choices, this is my estimate of what the differences should be. Players are of couse free to disagree and mod the mod.

PvK

[PsychoTechFreak]

Is it still possible to use both, computers and biomass to avoid allegiance subverts?

I mean, if I put a ship under human control with the backup solution of a computer in standby mode, but the negative combat values would still subtract from the total, right?

For this case I think about a proposal to add a neutral component with the shielding effects against AS but without any control features, maybe called "councillor", is that even possible?

EDIT: I guess it has been patched recently that even if the computer has been destroyed the AS would not take effect, so forget about it...

[ February 10, 2003, 11:51: Message edited by: PsychoTechFreak ]

[Phoenix-D]

You can partially counter-act the negative effects of the computer by adding a Combat Bridge. That will add 10 to your ship's attack/defense Ratings.

Phoenix-D

[PvK]

Originally posted by PsychoTechFreak:
Is it still possible to use both, computers and biomass to avoid allegiance subverts?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">

Yes.

I mean, if I put a ship under human control with the backup solution of a computer in standby mode, but the negative combat values would still subtract from the total, right?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">

Yes.

For this case I think about a proposal to add a neutral component with the shielding effects against AS but without any control features, maybe called "councillor", is that even possible?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">

Not currently possible. MC is a monolithic ability, even though it accomplishes two things.

EDIT: I guess it has been patched recently that even if the computer has been destroyed the AS would not take effect, so forget about it...<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, it has.

BTW, in any SE4 ship where there are multiple life support and crew quarters, one can put, say, one MC, a bridge, and one LS and one CQ, and the ship will still fly at full speed after getting hit by a virus, and in the new patch, will still be immune to subVersion.

PvK

[ February 10, 2003, 18:25: Message edited by: PvK ]

[PvK]

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
You can partially counter-act the negative effects of the computer by adding a Combat Bridge. That will add 10 to your ship's attack/defense Ratings.

Phoenix-D<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Combat Bridge gives even more bonus than the penalties for the higher-level master computers. Combat Aux Con will add another three, not to mention the sensor and combat support trees are very deep in Proportions, and there are other things that add modifiers.

It is a problem though for the AI, because MC's remain expensive, so it's a big waste that can't be modded around for the AI to be putting MC's on transports and escorts etc. If it weren't for John Sullivan's enthusiasm and work on the AI for Proportions, I'd've given up trying to make a decent AI opponent for Proportions. If I get time to make a new major Version, I think I will probably give the AI a lot of unique abilities to balance around its stupidity, instead of trying to walk tightropes to get it to play with the same rules as humans.

PvK

[Mudshark]

I've noticed that the Terran's are mixing phased shields with regenerating sheilds in the Battleship sizes in a game I'm currently playing (latest proportion) it kind of makes them an easy kill for my PPB equiped ships. Just a small bug.

I love, and play exclusivly your mod PVK

[PvK]

Thanks Mudshark. Hmm, that might be tricky (or a lot of work) to mod away properly, though it could be done. They will eventually get regenerating phased shield generators.

What year is it, and what level of phased weapons are you using on them?

PvK

[oleg]

Originally posted by PvK:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
You can partially counter-act the negative effects of the computer by adding a Combat Bridge. That will add 10 to your ship's attack/defense Ratings.

Phoenix-D<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Combat Bridge gives even more bonus than the penalties for the higher-level master computers. Combat Aux Con will add another three, not to mention the sensor and combat support trees are very deep in Proportions, and there are other things that add modifiers.

It is a problem though for the AI, because MC's remain expensive, so it's a big waste that can't be modded around for the AI to be putting MC's on transports and escorts etc. If it weren't for John Sullivan's enthusiasm and work on the AI for Proportions, I'd've given up trying to make a decent AI opponent for Proportions. If I get time to make a new major Version, I think I will probably give the AI a lot of unique abilities to balance around its stupidity, instead of trying to walk tightropes to get it to play with the same rules as humans.

PvK</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">With 1.84 AI fix I found Proportion' AI rather tough with medium/high bonus. Especially after I moded population*10 for AI pop.minister sake. The major problem is AI still can not mount a takeover of highly defended planets like homeworld.

[steveh11]

FWIW by the way, Iain M Banks' Culture novels have, indeed, got AI in charge of fleets - indeed, arguably, simply in charge, full stop.

Terrific reading. I especially liked - and recommend - "Excession" in this respect.

Steve.

[dogscoff]

Yeah, the Culture Minds are pretty much how I have always envisaged the SE4 Master Computers, althoguh I think PvK is right to tone them down in Proportions- they just become too powerful otherwise.

Have you read "Consider Phlebas"? I think that's my favourite Culture novel so far, a real tour of the Culture universe=-)

[PvK]

Well that's the problem - if you develop a truly intelligent and superior computer-controlled fleet, that's represented during race creation in the background text, e.g.:

"The X Imperium was originally a biological democracy who failed to restrain their technological developments to match the wisdom of their politicians. They developed a very clever warrior artificial intelligence system. So clever that it is now in complete control of the new X Imperium, with only a few biologicals retained mainly for experimental purposes."

So, perhaps I should add this as a racial trait (new racial tech area), rather than a simple component available to everyone on the computers research path.

It could even be something still discovered during play. At that point, components become available which make the bridge/crew completely superfluous. Hmm... sounds like a good idea, actually.

PvK

[steveh11]

Yup - good idea for V3 I think!

Mind you, I also like the idea of a Racial Trait, so either way - I think both would be too much? - would be fine with me.

By the way, I still love Proportions - now play SE4 exclusively with it.

Steve.

[PvK]

Thanks Steve!

[Mudshark]

Originally posted by PvK:
Thanks Mudshark. Hmm, that might be tricky (or a lot of work) to mod away properly, though it could be done. They will eventually get regenerating phased shield generators.

What year is it, and what level of phased weapons are you using on them?

PvK<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The year is 2478.6 I have phased level 8. I'm a glutton for punishment,255 systems. They happen to be 8 systems homeworld to homeword away. I have captured 1 planet 1 sys of of their home system. they still have a good presence in that system. One planet start game.

[ February 13, 2003, 01:58: Message edited by: Mudshark ]

[PvK]

786 turns! Cool... sounds like an epic game. I'd be interested to check out the saved game file, to see what mischief you and the AI have gotten into by that point. I don't think I've run tests of Proportions AI much longer than that.

What research cost setting did you use? Does the AI have a "bonus"?

PvK

[dogscoff]

For a really really epic game, generate a map where you will start the game stranded in an isolated group of systems. By the time you generate stellar manip and break out the AI empires will have huge economies and high tech fleets.

Dogscoff's pointless proportions suggestion of the day:
How about some cheaper-than-spaceyards "repair only" facilities, or maybe allowing distribution centres to repair one component per turn?

[oleg]

Yeah, I would like to see that savegame too !
Especially if any of my AI present (pequeninos, soulhunters, nostropholo, ukra-tal, cryslonite or drushoka)

[dogscoff]

Oleg: Drukshocka are currently giving me a hard time in my single player game - They block my only exit from the few systems I inhabit, and they have been very aggrssive. They are currently throwing BCs and BBs at my warp point, which I am barely holding with some old LCs, a few carriers and some captured ships (boarding). I don't have the resources to build anything better. Not sure how much longer I can survive against them.

Those Druk ships are ridiculously tough. If I didn't have shield + armour skipping weapons (temporal) they would have easily overwhelmed me 200 turns ago.

Oh yeah, to date they have sent 2 planet builders through the warp point! Here's me scraping together funds for light cruisers and they're building stellar manipulation ships! I managed to capture them both (had to mothball one immediately and scrap the other because even one turn's maintenance would have busted me). The thing is, how long until they start opening warp points..?

And once I get past the Druks, I have a feeling I'm going to bump into the Xi. Joy...

[ February 13, 2003, 14:37: Message edited by: dogscoff ]

[oleg]

Captured ? Their military ships should have self-distract devices. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif I'll check if there are mistakes in design_creation file, thanks !

[Krsqk]

Captured ? Their military ships should have self-distract devices. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Maybe the design engineers had all the self-distract devices. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif That's probably why the ships didn't get what they were supposed to. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[dogscoff]

Actually, I hit them with armour&shield skipping temporal weapons until the SDD was destroyed, then moved in the boarding ship.

In fact all that armour makes this tactic easier - If you're not lucky enough to take out the SSD early, you can just completely gut the internals (including SDD) without much danger of utterly destroying the ship because the organic armour is left 'til Last. You can then mothball the ship and repair the non-organic components.

It's a bit gamey playing the AI like this in tactical, but I've given it plenty of help already (Ai has high bonus and 3000 racial points, but I've only taken temporal and then the space wasters trait.) and I need every advantage I can get.

[Aloofi]

I'm sorry, but somebody forgot to post the LINK to the proportions mod.
How the hell I'm suppose to update if I have no LINK?
I guess people around here always forget the NEWBIES.....

[Aloofi]

Don't bother, I found it at the Encyclopedia.
Peter, maybe you should include your page on your signature......

[oleg]

OK, in next Version I'll reduce number of OA and increase number of internal armour. Or should I put a second SSD on big ships ? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif Hmmm, let's see what would you do then ! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[PvK]

Aloofim, there is a link in the first message in this thread. I also posted it in the Mods List sticky topic. Adding it to my sig is a good idea though.

Oleg, at least if he's gutting your ships down to the armor before capturing them, he's not gaining any tech - just resources.

I've been fighting the Drushocka too, in Fryon's PBW game Adamant 0006, which uses his Quadrant Mod too, so even though the AI is given a bonus, they need it because the AI doesn't do remote mining, and there are asteroids everywhere, so human players get nearly unlimited resources. They were doing pretty well, and had captured several planets and built some major cities and fancy organic facilities. They had some strong fleets with a good mix of troop transports, carriers, warships and minesweepers, and their ships were quite effective (I won't spoil the surprise of the weapons mix here, for those who haven't fought them before). We had some really enormous battles where I lost scores of ships and fighters but eventually wore them back, mainly by throwing heaps of ships at them. They're still kicking, though, and are now capturing and smashing the colonies of one of my human allies.

I managed to capture one of their colony ships - I don't think those have SDD's.

PvK

[dogscoff]

Yeah, colony ships are completely undefended. They don't even try to ram.

As for the Druk warships... internal armour would make a difference, although to be honest it's only ppl with weapons that skip armour AND shields fighting in tactical that can capture Druk ships in this way. Anyone with regular weapons or using simultaneous is going to get their arse handed to them. Some internal armour might be good, but I don't think a second SDD would make much difference.

Something wierd I did notice though: They've just started using battleships, and some of them have 2 master computers. Is that normal?

Anyway, just got my first temporal spaceyard IIIs Online, I can now throw out anti-druk battlecruisers in 3 turns=-) Now we'll see some real action...

[ February 14, 2003, 09:41: Message edited by: dogscoff ]

[oleg]

Originally posted by dogscoff:
Yeah, colony ships are completely undefended. They don't even try to ram.

As for the Druk warships... internal armour would make a difference, although to be honest it's only ppl with weapons that skip armour AND shields fighting in tactical that can capture Druk ships in this way. Anyone with regular weapons or using simultaneous is going to get their arse handed to them. Some internal armour might be good, but I don't think a second SDD would make much difference.

Something wierd I did notice though: They've just started using battleships, and some of them have 2 master computers. Is that normal?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It is an artefact from pre 1.84 SE - Large ships have a backup MC as a protection against AS. Now AI uses MC as a primary ship control and I will release a new Version over weekend that address this issue.

[oleg]

There is still a problem with Jraenar AI - it uses DUC 1 as a primary weapon on Attack Light Cruisers. I think I mentioned this before and was under impression that PvK fixed it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Jraenar' major weapon is MB, it never research APB or high level DUC, but attack light cruiser design has weapon selection "1" (APB) and "25" (DUC). It _must_ be changed to "3". I think there are few more AIs with this bug.

[PvK]

I thought I'd fixed that too - evidently not. Ok, thanks Oleg.

PvK

[oleg]

Update for several Proportions 2.5.3 AIs. AI uses new carrier classes. It may cause problems with pre- 2.5.3 It also contains 5 new ship pictures for Pequeninos race. Please let me know how good is this modified AI. I especially interested if new specialised anti-fighter AI ship design works.
1045316333.zip (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/newuploads/1045316333.zip)

[Baron Munchausen]

Originally posted by dogscoff:

Something wierd I did notice though: They've just started using battleships, and some of them have 2 master computers. Is that normal?

Anyway, just got my first temporal spaceyard IIIs Online, I can now throw out anti-druk battlecruisers in 3 turns=-) Now we'll see some real action...<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Aiiiieee! I hadn't realized that this would be added to the mix of problems caused by the new 'default' MC usage. The way the AI designs ships is very mechanical. It goes through the required features one by one and adds whatever is needed to meet each requirement without checking if the ship already has the ability. So even if you make an integrated Combat Sensor/Multiplex-tracking component for example, the AI will add TWO of them to each design unless you remove the call to one or the other of those abilities.

Granted, this might be caused by some special feature of the proportions mod (using non-standard ablities) but it seems equally likely that the AI is grabbing the MC twice in the basic design process. Where are they located in the design? Right at the beginning? Or are they mixed in with the other components? I haven't seen it do this yet, but I've not been playing very much. I hope it's an artifact of Proportions. One MC is expensive enough. Two would make ships outrageously expensive.

[ February 16, 2003, 00:57: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

[oleg]

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
...Granted, this might be caused by some special feature of the proportions mod (using non-standard ablities) but it seems equally likely that the AI is grabbing the MC twice in the basic design process. Where are they located in the design? Right at the beginning? Or are they mixed in with the other components? I haven't seen it do this yet, but I've not been playing very much. I hope it's an artifact of Proportions. One MC is expensive enough. Two would make ships outrageously expensive.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It is not Proportion' feature. Several TDM races have "master computer" as a call in design_creation file. It is of course redundant now. I did not check the latest TDM but I'm pretty sure this problem will be taken care soon if not yet. My latest AI files (see below) are purged of "master computer" calls.

[dogscoff]

Update for several Proportions 2.5.3 AIs. AI uses new carrier classes. It may cause problems with pre- 2.5.3 It also contains 5 new ship pictures for Pequeninos race. Please let me know how good is this modified AI. I especially interested if new specialised anti-fighter AI ship design works.
1045316333.zip

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Cooooooll... thanks.

The second MC was one of the Last components on the design, if I remember correctly. perhaps 5 or 6 spaces from the end.

[Aloofi]

Which file do I have to tinker so I get 19 Cultural centers and a shipyard in the starting planet instead of 16 Cultural Centers, a shipyard, an Spaceport, a resuply and a Rad complex?
Is it there any graphic for a mega Spaceport-resuply-shipyard-cargo facility that can be set for inaccesible tech and avaliable only for the starting planet?

[oleg]

You don't realy need them.
Research computers and build robotoid factory and the building that boosts research (forget the name) instaed of spaceport and resuply depot.
You will get more from existing centers than having two more http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

seriously though, it is not easy to do, you will need to rework facilities.txt file in /data folder.

[Aloofi]

Originally posted by oleg:
seriously though, it is not easy to do, you will need to rework facilities.txt file in /data folder.[/QB]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Facilities.text?
But where exactly it says which building make it to the Homeworld?
I just want a mega space-yard-port that can't be replicated it in a colony.
I love the Homeworld concept in Proportions... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ February 17, 2003, 14:07: Message edited by: Aloofim ]

[oleg]

I think you can achieve what you want by moving Cultural centers from their own Category into the same Category as spaceports and/or resupply depot. Then SE may chose them in the begining of the game. As to radioactive magaplex - it happens only at full tech start. As PvK mentioned many times, he never intended Proportions to be played that way. It should always be played with low/medium tech.

[Aloofi]

Originally posted by oleg:
I think you can achieve what you want by moving Cultural centers from their own Category into the same Category as spaceports and/or resupply depot. Then SE may chose them in the begining of the game. As to radioactive magaplex - it happens only at full tech start. As PvK mentioned many times, he never intended Proportions to be played that way. It should always be played with low/medium tech.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Guess what, I got a Rad Megaplex starting with medium tech, and it have a roman number 4 on it!
It never happened before. I usually get 17 Cultural centers, the Spaceport, resuply and Shipyard.
I'm gonna try what you told me of building the robofactory.
Still, i would like to have a unique Mega Spaceport-shipyard for the homeworld. Its not just a problem of production, but of unique looks. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[PvK]

I think the closest image I made was the combo spaceport & resupply depot. All you'd have to do is find an image you like, and then add spaceyard abilities to that facility, and give it only tech requirements that you will start the game with. You might want to make it pretty expensive (it should cost more than the cost of a combo spaceport/resupply AND a shipyard combined). There will also be an issue in that if you have three tech levels, it will be more expensive to upgrade than a plain shipyard, but I guess that's a tradeoff with combining them in one.

Sounds like you actually want two things - a different-looking spaceyard for the homeworld, and a triple-combo facility for colonies. Since cultural centers include supply and spaceports, there's no real reason to use the combo SY on the homeworld.

Edit/PS: Tje Rads complex (not megaplex) with numeral IV is (IIRC) available with the Industrial starting tech given by a Medium Tech start. It's a TL 1 extraction complex - industry lets you build complexes rather than just facilities. Higher tech will let you build the megaplexes. The Minerals extraction tech will let you build higher levels of whatever size you choose. So there are 9 levels of conventional minerals extraction. If you research Minerals extraction to level 2 from a medium tech start, you'd get Min Fac 2 (II) and Min Complex 2 (V) - you then have a choice of speed and quick return on investment, versus higher investment for higher eventual returns.

Edit/PS 2: Although there is a file for homeworld RE-construction, the only way to change what starts on a homeworld is to understand how the computer chooses, and then give it things that it will choose. I.E., more or less, first it builds the most constructive spaceyard fac, then a resupply depot and spaceyard (with some details I'm forgetting), then it fills about half the remaining planet with the most productive minerals facs, then it fills the rest with the most productive research facs, except for one of the most productive organics facs, and one of the most productive rads facs. In Proportions 2.5.x, a Rads megaplex is the only production facility that actually out-produces a cultural center, in its one Category.

PvK

[ February 17, 2003, 20:09: Message edited by: PvK ]

[Aloofi]

PvK, you got me lost.
How do you make it appear in a homeworld?
What is the trick to make it an starting facility?

I just want the Huge mega Space port-resuply-shipyard in the homeworld, not the colonies. Its just like your Cultural Centers, to simulate a developed homeworld as oppouse to a colony.
I mean, a homeworld will always have a shipyard, but then why to have the same shipyard that we can build in the colonies? why not have a unique huge shipyard that represents years (or centuries) of investments from the first day a rocket made it to orbit?

[PvK]

Is this for Proportions 2, or for a new mod which won't have cultural centers? Because, cultural centers already include spaceports and resupply depots. It'd be odd to be able to somehow lose the ability of a spacefaring homeworld with intact industrial civilizations, to resupply ships, or to act as a space port.

PvK

[Aloofi]

Originally posted by PvK:
Is this for Proportions 2, or for a new mod which won't have cultural centers? Because, cultural centers already include spaceports and resupply depots. It'd be odd to be able to somehow lose the ability of a spacefaring homeworld with intact industrial civilizations, to resupply ships, or to act as a space port.

PvK<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Nope, its just to mod your mod into my personal mod. I hope you don't mind. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
Ok, you are right, its an overkill, I'll forget about the spaceport-resuply part. I just want a regular Shipyard facility but with a diferent graphic that its only avaliable for the Homeworld as an starting facility. Is that possible?

[ February 19, 2003, 14:47: Message edited by: Aloof ]

[Fyron]

I just want a regular Shipyard facility but with a diferent graphic that its only avaliable for the Homeworld as an starting facility. Is that possible?<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes. Copy the Space Yard III facility, and place it right after the original SY III. Make the new one slightly more productive (or however you want to do it) and make it cost as much as Cultural Centers. Actually, doing this will probably cause the AIs to try to build them on colonies. Maybe you should try experimenting with placing it before the other SYs, try different family numbers, etc., to try to get the AIs to not build them on colonies. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[PvK]

Ya, gotta watch out for the AI. I'm not sure, but it might work to (do either of the things Fryon suggested) or to give it no Roman numeral, and put it before the other Space Yards.

BTW, yes, of course, I'm glad people apply tweaks to Proportions to suit their own tastes, and it's very interesting to hear about them.

If you come up with a neat new image and a way to get this to work, I might try to include it in some later Version.

PvK

[leo1434]

Hello Mr. PvK:

I would like to know something about the armor platings present in Proportions Mod:

What are the pros and cons of using them instead of the normal small armor components. Has something to do with hit probability (I suppose that as the plating is the bigger component installed in a ship, it will probably take the majority of shots?) Are there any other purpose for it? I would thank you alot if you drop a line about this topic.

By the way, the scale mount concept is a very clever one. It accuartely represents some components wich are directly related to the ship hull size in which they are used. I adapted it to make a cargo/supplies external pod mounting, but it is being tested at the moment. If someone is interested in seeing what is all about. I can upload the CompEnh.txt and Components.txt file fragments (to copy an paste in any mod folder).

I also like Proportions because it makes homeworlds different from new colonies, as a long time inhabited world has to be more developed in facilities that a colony. Real good mod. Keep the good work!

[PvK]

Thanks leo1434!

I'm currently teasing Fryon about not being able to figure out the armor choices, so I'll reply in private and post publically later after he guesses the answer. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

PvK

[Fyron]

Well, let's see.

Armored Structure III: 12 HP/kT. 3 emmissive ability.
Armor Plating II: 2.6 HP/kT. 11 emmissive.

Hmm... do I want 182 HP, or 840. Tough decision. 11 emmissive is not enough to justify losing 658 hit points.

Advanced Armored Structure III: 18 HP/kT. 5 emmissive ability.
Advanced Armor Plating II: 4 HP/kT. 13 emmissive.

Still has the same problems that normal armored structure does compared to armor plating. So does Ultra armor.

As 120 is more hit points than nearly anything else (that isn't armor), normal Armored Structure components provide just as good coverage as those Plating components (esp. since there are 7x as many of them).

What is so good about these Armor Plating components?

[ February 20, 2003, 06:42: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[PvK]

leo1434 wrote:
"What are the pros and cons of using them instead of the normal small armor components. Has something to do with hit probability (I suppose that as the plating is the bigger component installed in a ship, it will probably take the majority of shots?) Are there any other purpose for it? ..."

There are several tradeoffs involved, which I really like about the armored platings. It's also interesting that the situation changes with different ship sizes. For the specialized platings like stealth and scattering types, it makes it economical to apply these to small ships, while larger ships will have to make major investments both in resources and in component size to cover themselves.

The main thing to consider about armored plating compared to armored structure, is that they have different purposes. Armored structure's main purpose is to add lots of structure to the whole ship, and to absorb damage that penetrates "hit first" armor - it makes the whole ship take more to destroy, and for the lower tech levels, is very cost-effective. Armored plating has some of the same effect, but its main purpose is different - it's purpose is to reduce damage before it gets to internal components, and to reduce the total damage actually sustained, by deflecting as much as possible, rather than absorbing it. This is a natural consequence of covering the entire outside of the ship (as opposed to general armoring of the interior, or uneven armoring, which is what the armored structure represents).

In game terms, the armored plating has a higher emissive effect than the structure, which subtracts from every hit on the ship until the component is destroyed. Because plating isn't "hit first," and often has less damage resistance than the armored structure (especially if there are several armored structure components), the armored plating often isn't destroyed until the ship has been heavily bLasted. You actually DON'T want the armored plating to take damage itself, because if it gets shot off, you lose its superior emissive effect, which causes all subsequent hits to do more damage (this represents a major breach in the external armor, through which more hits can bypass the shell protection). For this reason, you might want to have more than one armored plating component on some very heavily armored ships.

The strongest armored ship design will probably have a mix of armor types, because their effects are complementary. The power of the opponents' weapons also makes a big difference - armored shells are great against non-armor-piercing light-to-medium hits, especially when backed by a lot of armored structure. Armored shells are not so important against really powerful-per-shot weapons, or anything that "skips armor".

Fryon: The idea is not use the plating to replace structure - you usually just take one (or maybe two) levels of plating, and then get a bunch of structure to back it up. The more structure you get, the more you get out of your one unit of plating, because:

1) The structure makes your ship absorb many more hits, and the plating multiplies the number of hits your structure can take, by reducing the damage per hit.

and

2) The structure makes the plating much less likely to be hit and shot off, which you don't want to happen.

Plating has fairly high structure, but that's not what its for, and can actually be a disadvantage because it makes it more likely to get hit, losing the emissive effect. The fact that the structure varies with the ship size due to the scale mount also makes some sense, because it is more likely that a large ship will develop a major armor breach before being devastated, than on a small ship.

PvK

[Fyron]

11-15 emmissive points doesn't matter much with fighter stacks and weapon mounts. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Oh no, I do 165 damage instead of 180! Not that! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[oleg]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
11-15 emmissive points doesn't matter much with fighter stacks and weapon mounts. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Oh no, I do 165 damage instead of 180! Not that! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I beg to disagree. Proportions is different from normal SE. First, large mounts have to-hit penalties. This and combat penalties on large ships make small ships valuable throught the game. EA ability of armour platings may become a real factor. Second, most fighter weapons have a top damage of 4 ! Even stack of 20 will be affected (I consider moving 100+ fighter stack around system too cheesy since AI can not do it). High damage fighter weapons have hideius to-hit penalties so it is another interesting trade-off.

[Aloofi]

Yesterday one of my BattleCruisers got pounded to death by 15 Drushocka Destroyers, and by the end the only thing left in my ship was the armored structure. It looked like an empty egg shell.... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
is it that way how its suppose to work?

By the way, do the AI always build the latest avaliable hull or the most cost efficient, or maybe a balanced mix?
I'm worry cause I added to the price of larger hulls.....
Maybe I should have added maintenance penalties instead of price......

[oleg]

What AI builds is dictated by interplay of Construction_vehicles.txt and design_creation.txt files
Several Proportions' AI are programmed to build a mixture of hulls.

[Aloofi]

Originally posted by oleg:
What AI builds is dictated by interplay of Construction_vehicles.txt and design_creation.txt files
Several Proportions' AI are programmed to build a mixture of hulls.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hey, that's great news. I'll take a look into those files to see how it works.
Dam, I hate being a newbie.... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[dogscoff]

I installed the new AI files posted recently and the Druks have started sending new-generation Dreadnoughts against me. They are ridiculously hard to kill now.

PvK, I have noticed that on the design screen some obselete components still show up even when better Versions have been researched. So far I have noticed this with solar collectors and temporal weapons. Is this deliberate or is it an error?

[oleg]

Originally posted by dogscoff:
I installed the new AI files posted recently and the Druks have started sending new-generation Dreadnoughts against me. They are ridiculously hard to kill now.

PvK, I have noticed that on the design screen some obselete components still show up even when better Versions have been researched. So far I have noticed this with solar collectors and temporal weapons. Is this deliberate or is it an error?<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Glad you like them http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

As to obsolete components - it is an artefact of PvK' desire to keep existing games compatiable with new Versions: If you insert a new component into old components.txt file, it will srew up existing designs completely. But if you add the new component at the end of file, SE does not group it with old but now separated components.

I sincerely hope that very soon PvK will release a brand new Version (3.0 ?)that will clean up this mess http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ February 20, 2003, 15:21: Message edited by: oleg ]

[PvK]

There are also a few things that aren't really obsolete, which are that way on purpose, but ya, the order is a little mixed up to allow upgrading old games.

PvK

[PvK]

As for massive fighter stacks (unfortunately not moddable away) and large weapon mounts, yes as I said, these are good against armored shells. For the large weapons it's intentional, and makes perfect sense. But even for the fighter stacks, it's not really a balance problem except perhaps against the AI, which isn't programmed to realize how to counter it.

100 fighters in a stack may be able to dwarf the emissive ability of an armored shell, but it also forces the fighters to fire one giant shot at once. This will be a disadvantage if the enemy has fighters in smaller Groups, because the 100-stack will only be able to fire at one enemy group per turn, wasting any excess firepower, while incoming fire against the stack won't waste any firepower until the very end.

Moreover, as oleg mentioned, small ships remain viable throughout the game - a squadron of smaller ships with lighter weapons can often evade the less accurate big-mounted capital ship weapons.

Which is not to say that every ship should have an armored shell against all opponents. The whole point is that there are choices with trade-offs, and not just "X is better than anything else in all ways", moreso, I think, than in the unmodded game.

As for hulks with only structure remaining, that can certainly happen, tough it's pretty varied how ships take damage, and depends on the armor and the weapons used and, with armored structure, a lot on chance. Usually the armor pretty effectively protects the useful components, but sometimes the components get nailed before armor. Usually it's a mix.

PvK

[Talenn]

Hey PvK, et al:

I've been using a modified Version of Proportions 2.5.3. So far, I like it a lot. You've put a lot of time and effort into this mod and it really shows. I had been hunting for a mod to use as basis for a mod of my own and Proportions seems to work out really well for it.

For my mod, I've sped up colonization a little and I've added in some components and whatnot from a few other mods (mostly from Devnull). I've also added in a number of 'human-only' items that we can use in multiplayer games, but that I dont want to have to worry about the AI getting tripped up by.

One thing that I've noticed in Proportions is how good of a buy the Torpedo Techs are. They are cheap to research and do a lot of 'up front' damage which, in keeping with your discussion below, seems key. Given the way the tech cost progression increases geometrically and how the bulk of an empire's research points are coming from the Homeworld (and thus, available at start), it seems that the 10000 point cost makes Torps an obvious choice. You can have Torpedo IV (a powerful weapon) for less cost that of level III in a number of other weapons and the progression only gets worse the higher it goes.

The lower 'startup costs' seem key in this mod because your research points arent increasing at the same rate as the costs for higher level techs (ie, a lot of the research points are 'front-loaded'). I've modded in a negative on the Torp's accuracy to compensate. This leaves them with the feeling of capital ship killers (along with their high damage numbers which is good for punching through emissive effects) but prevents them from being the obvious choice in the early game. Has anyone else noticed Torps as a good buy or is everyone just used to them being useless in the basic tech set and not really bothered with them? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Is there some updated listing of how emissive armor works now? I remember threads on it ages ago, but I'm sure they are outdated with the newer patches. Do emissive effects stack or is it only the highest...ie, if I have 2 Armored Hulls (11 Emissive each), do I have 22 total? Does it stack from different component (ie, 1 Armored Structure giving 1 + the Hull giving 11 = 12?)? I also wasnt aware that Emissive effects were 'global'. I was under the impression that the Emissive component had to be 'hit' for the damage reduction to apply. Has this been thoroughly tested and confirmed?

Thanx for any input/answers on the above!

Talenn

[Aloofi]

Originally posted by PvK:
There are also a few things that aren't really obsolete, which are that way on purpose, but ya, the order is a little mixed up to allow upgrading old games.

PvK<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'm willing to start a new game the moment you post the 3.0.
So don't wait for nobody. I have become a faithful follower of your mod. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

By the way, do you think its ok that Sats are actualy bigger than fighters?

[Aloofi]

Yes!
Great idea! How it didn't occurred to me before?
I'll erase the Ice and Gas planets with Oxigen to simulate that Rock people need Domes in those planets. Since I always play Rock/Oxigen it'll be perfect. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
Humm, I have to check first that none of the existing races is Ice or Gas/Oxigen..........
And as a side effect any AI race that is "Rock/ none Oxigen" will still capable of fully colonizing Ice and Gas as a bonus.

[Fyron]

By the way, do you think its ok that Sats are actualy bigger than fighters?<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">First off, the Kiloton in SE4 is an abstract and arbitrary unit that means nothing. All that it does is allow for a relative system of how much you can put in each vehicle. Different vehicle types are not really on the same scale.

Second, these are not like satellites we have launched into space. They are more like small automated space stations. So, being larger than fighters makes some sense. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ February 21, 2003, 00:43: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[Puke]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
[QUOTE]First off, the Kiloton in SE4 is an abstract and arbitrary unit that means nothing. All that it does is allow for a relative system of how much you can put in each vehicle. Different vehicle types are not really on the same scale.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I have gone through great pains in GritTech, to make SE4 Kilo-Tons meaningful. I believe that I have met with a good deal of success. many of these efforts were inspired by the Porportions mod. I would guess that PvK wishes the KT representation in his mod to be something more than meaninless and arbitrary.

[Fyron]

Well, kT are not changed much in Proportions, so they are as meaningless there as in the normal game. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[leo1434]

Hello:

So, I understand it better now they are complementary. Ok.

In that case, what percentage of a given hull size (say, 700 kT in example) would you use for armor (plating + armor components). In the balance of mobility, protection and firepower, I like to favour:
1) Mobility (you cannot be hit if you are not there) It is best used in Master of Orion 2 battles, I miss those weapon firing arcs!
2) Armor: If you can withstand the enemy fire one more turn, may be you will outLast him.
3) Well, and Last firepower...

I would really thank you for your opinion about ship protection.

Other topic: I was thinking about modeling a "light" Version of the armour platings (which will take less space) and keeping the "standard" ones, of course. So, suppose I make a plating wich takes half the space of the current ones, What would be a proportional protection value? Should structure tonnage and emisive ability be reduced to half, too? Or would you suggest another structure/tonnage/ability ratio?
(Is this question clear enough?)

Thank you very much to all for this and previous advice...

[PvK]

Thanks for the kind feedback, Talenn!

Gosh, heaps of questions to try to cover in everyone's Messages.

Torpedoes are a good weapon in Proportions, and yes one advantage is the relatively low research cost. I had originally thought to reduce their accuracy, but then I might make them a little more hard-hitting. The research cost may be sort of a bargain I suppose. Investing in other heavy anti-ship weapons can yield even more effective weapons, though, eventually. Remember too that torpedoes can't target fighters, drones, or satellites. But yeah, they are good weapons in Proportions. I think most weapons have gotten better, though.

The Emissive Armor discussion from patch 2's release is still correct in patch 3. Emissive armor effects never stack. The highest emissive rating on any undestroyed component on the ship subtracts from the damage done by each weapon hit that gets past shields, unless the damage type is one that skips armor. It does not matter which component is hit. It has been tested and confirmed.

kT in Proportions aren't meaningless, but they are abstract, and not to be taken literally. Of course, the have meaning in that they have game effects. They are almost never actual kiloTons (thousand tons). No fighter is 15-25,000 TONS, and the smallest scout ship is not going to be 100,000 TONS, or a small satellite 80,000 TONS - that's just silly. You could imagine each fighter unit were a squadron or more, and the mass included all the personnel, supplies, and equipment required to keep them operating in space. Mainly though Proportions sticks to the same base values for most things, except population size, cargo capacities, and colony ship size.

That satellites are larger than fighters I think does make sense, given what they do in the game. I have been thinking for a long time though that it would make sense to have dinky satellites, down to 1 kT, although they wouldn't do much, and the main use for them would be recon, and there's no way to mod away their built-in ability to give full system spotting info, so maybe it does make sense to have a minimum 80 kT, to get the minimum abilities. Smaller satellites would be possible, but also would be kind of beneath the scope of the game, sort of like the assumption of small invisible "civilian" ships.

My opinion on ship protection, is that there are many valid choices, which all can be effective. You can go for unmodded-style ships with little or no armor and shields, and they may succeed because they will have a lot more firepower and ability than ships with a signifigant portion of armor. However, they will also be a lot more expensive and may get destroyed or crippled by a hit or two from a powerful weapon. Armor can add a lot of staying power to a ship, and can also make opponents who use a high "damage until" or "target most damaged" tactic waste firepower while healthy ships bLast them. The tricky thing is, there are now many different types of armor, with different trade-offs, and a major one is expense. The best-protected ship may have a bunch of Ultra Armor Structure, redundant plating, and specialized armors, but it will cost as much as a whole squadron, and may have a lot less ability, except at taking damage, and taking lots of hits may not be your main purpose for building ships. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif It may be a good idea to deploy a variety of designs, too. I don't have a favorite formula, but I do have quite a few designs I like a lot. Usually it's hard for me to decide how much armor and shields to put on, and what types, versus abilties. I usually end up exploring several different designs in every empire.

A "light" armor plating at 50%... I'd probably give half structure compared to full plating, and half cost and size, but would probably not be more than half the emissive value of full plate, and not more than or +2 more than the emissive ability (or defense bonus) of the structure of the same tech level - whichever value is lower. Thinning plating tends to defeat the purpose, but for designs that don't have the tonnage to spare, could be better than all structure and no plating.

PvK

[Fyron]

kT in Proportions aren't meaningless, but they are abstract, and not to be taken literally. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The numbers themselves aren't meaningless, they determine how much you can place on the vehicle. But the kT unit itself is indeed meaningless. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Aloofi]

Horrible! Terrible!
How can this happen?
Why I can't retrive fighters with 1.84 if they don't have full movement points?
Please somebody help me....I can't live with this, how can I fix this?
Its like:
-"Control tower, this is British Airways fly 408 to Heathrow Airport requesting permission to land"
-"Fly 408, you can't land until tomorrow when you have your full movement points. Sorry about that, but its company policy. Keep flying in circles until tomorrow, and have a great evening."

[oleg]

Originally posted by Aloofi:
Horrible! Terrible!
How can this happen?
Why I can't retrive fighters with 1.84 if they don't have full movement points?
Please somebody help me....I can't live with this, how can I fix this?
Its like:
-"Control tower, this is British Airways fly 408 to Heathrow Airport requesting permission to land"
-"Fly 408, you can't land until tomorrow when you have your full movement points. Sorry about that, but its company policy. Keep flying in circles until tomorrow, and have a great evening."<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif You will have to live with it. It is a good solution to "chain transport" abuse: you move one carrier, launch fighters to another carrier then move the second carrier. This way you can shuttle an escadron of fighters through 2 systems in one turn !

[Aloofi]

Where its the file about the ruins?
I'm trying to find it to understand how ruins work in Proportions but the only thing I saw its in the Abilities.txt ..........

[oleg]

Torpedos are very good weapon in Proportions but I think Meson BLaster is still better choice in early game.

Does anybody have an example of fighting against Soul Hunters? They use Torpedoes as a main weapon.

[oleg]

Originally posted by Aloofi:
Where its the file about the ruins?
I'm trying to find it to understand how ruins work in Proportions but the only thing I saw its in the Abilities.txt ..........<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">In StellarAbilities.txt I think.

[Aloofi]

Originally posted by oleg:
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif[/img] You will have to live with it. It is a good solution to "chain transport" abuse: you move one carrier, launch fighters to another carrier then move the second carrier. This way you can shuttle an escadron of fighters through 2 systems in one turn !<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Noooo.......don't tell me that please....

*falls on the ground crying and starts pulling out his hair*

Somebody please bring me back my fighters....my precious....

It was so cool before. Fighters could fly to a planet, refuel and rearm, and then continue and intercep an evil alien fleet. They were real interceptors. And since I always play without protecting Warp points, interceptors were a must.
Now I can't even keep my own in-house rule of never having a fighter in space at the end of a turn. Now they have to stay in space more than one turn, and that its so unrealistic! The poor pilots have to be in space for over 30 days in a cockpit!
As long as I was able to use launch them and retrieve them in the same turn I could have argued that they only expended a couple days in an intercepting mission. But 30 days! This is nuts!
I want my SE4 back!

*starts crying and screaming loudly while the neigbours call 911 to accuse him of domestic violence*

[Aloofi]

Originally posted by oleg:
Torpedos are very good weapon in Proportions but I think Meson BLaster is still better choice in early game.

Does anybody have an example of fighting against Soul Hunters? They use Torpedoes as a main weapon.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I definitively agree. The best frigging weapon in Proportions pound by pound its the Meson BLaster VI. Match it up with a couple shield depleters and you don't need a Phased Polaron Beam. The Ripper beam also have a good Firepower/fire-rate/weight ratio. But forget about the famous Wave motion gun. Of course, to defeat a high level emisive armor a little more punch might be needed....

[solops]

Originally posted by oleg:

Does anybody have an example of fighting against Soul Hunters? They use Torpedoes as a main weapon.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yeah, I'm fighting the Soul Hunters right now. So far it consists of me hiding behind minefields. When I stick my nose out their torpedoes blow it off.

[Talenn]

I dont honestly think that Torps are better than some other weapons in and of themselves, but their research is mighty cheap. Given the way the cost of research mushrooms, but your available points are much flatter in Proportions, techs with a low 'startup cost' are more attractive.

A choice between Torp 5 and a Beam 4...I'll take the Torp almost any day, especially when you factor in the Emissive effects of armor, further degrading the effectiveness of the smaller beams.

Note that I dont think anything is horribly broken in the mod, just that Torps are a really good deal in the early (first 100 turns) game.

Talenn

[Aloofi]

But then, what's the point of researching something that you will use only temporaly?
Isn't it better to go straight for your weapon of choice no matter the cost?

[Aloofi]

About the Kt thingy:
What troops are suppose to represent?
I always play calling then Divisions, like Infantry Division, Heavy Infantry Division, Elite Infantry Division, Armor Division, Heavy Armor Division and Elite Armor Division.
That its assuming they are a 10 000 men strong division, because if 1 million Pop unit it 1000 Kt then the small Troop of 10 Kt would be 10 000 people, right?
The thing is that I would like to have all Troops from infantry to Large Troop to weight 10 Kt for cargo porpouses only, not for design.
Is that possible?

[Phoenix-D]

"The thing is that I would like to have all Troops from infantry to Large Troop to weight 10 Kt for cargo porpouses only, not for design.
Is that possible?"

No.

Phoenix-D

[Aloofi]

Ok, then I will create a componet called "recruits" that weights 9 kt with the Pop pic and give the ability of "need 90% recruits" to infantry units.... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
Wow, good idea. Can I really do this?

[JLS]

If it weren't for John Sullivan's enthusiasm and work on the AI for Proportions, I'd've given up trying to make a decent AI opponent for Proportions. If I get time to make a new major Version, I think I will probably give the AI a lot of unique abilities to balance around its stupidity, instead of trying to walk tightropes to get it to play with the same rules as humans.
PvK <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">OK, here it is !!! I finally finished AI Balance Mod I sent you Last Thanks Giving 2002 with a few extras. The AI Works great in Solitaire Play, Simultaneous Play, and Finite resources. … You can download at the link below …. Check it out also in the Mod Sticky. AI CAMPAIGN (http://www.shrapnelgames.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=008267)

[ February 21, 2003, 23:14: Message edited by: JLS ]

[Phoenix-D]

"Ok, then I will create a componet called "recruits" that weights 9 kt with the Pop pic and give the ability of "need 90% recruits" to infantry units....
Wow, good idea. Can I really do this?"

Ahh..sorta. The only type of that that works is (max) Engines, Cargo Bays, Fighter Bays, Life Support, and Crew Quarters. I'm not sure if the Last three work for troops..

Phoenix-D

[Fyron]

Originally posted by Aloofi:
But then, what's the point of researching something that you will use only temporaly?
Isn't it better to go straight for your weapon of choice no matter the cost?<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not at all. In the normal game, it is much more effective to research DUCs, PPBs, and then APBs, than it is to research APBs directly. This is because for the same cost of research, DUCs or PPBs are much more powerful than APBs. The research cost of DUC V and PPB V is very small when compared to APB XII, so researching them first doesn't hurt much at all. Also, Combat Sensors + ECM and DUCs are better than PPBs. You have to factor in researching other things too. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[PsychoTechFreak]

Sorry, maybe it has been already discussed or I am missing your point, but what I mean is:

Let's assume, I plan to build ONE metropolis as a considerable project for a small planet.
1) Build it from scratch, needs 21 years.
2) Build a minor city, then upgrade, needs 14 years.

[oleg]

Yes, if you run out of space on the planet, you should go "vertical" and upgrade cities. Not much can be done about upgrade trick. The alternative been to raise the upgrade cost but then you will have to scrap the painfully build expensive cities to replace them with megapolises.

In my previous post I was referring to this scenario: you have a new colony with say 15 slots. You can either build cities or build city, upgrade it, build second city ... The former approach is more profitable but at the end you finish with 15 cities and it will take a century to upgrade them all http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

[Aloofi]

Originally posted by oleg:
You can either build cities or build city, upgrade it, build second city ... The former approach is more profitable but at the end you finish with 15 cities and it will take a century to upgrade them all http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ok, counting the prodution output, which way its more profitable?
Because maybe its not worth the effort to upgrade. I mean pound by pound (bulding time/expected prodution) the cities that you can build in the same time that you build metropolis might be more productive....
And what about Spaceport cities? do they upgrade to metropolis?
I don't know but sometimes I feel that the lowly Mineral miner is the best bet.
.

[PsychoTechFreak]

Ok, counting the prodution output, which way its more profitable?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The upgrade way from the lowest possible facility (minor city) would be more profitable. Your minor cities would produce during the update time AND the overall costs and time are lower than building the higher facility from scratch, see my minor city to metropolis example below.

And what about Spaceport cities? do they upgrade to metropolis?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I think they are different families, so they don't.

[Aloofi]

Originally posted by PsychoTechFreak:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The upgrade way from the lowest possible facility (minor city) would be more profitable. Your minor cities would produce during the update time AND the overall costs and time are lower than building the higher facility from scratch, see my minor city to metropolis example below.
.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">So which way wins the effectiviness contest:
1-Build the 15 minor cities and then upgrade.
2-Build one Minor city, upgrade, then go to the next.

[dogscoff]

So which way wins the effectiviness contest:
1-Build the 15 minor cities and then upgrade.
2-Build one Minor city, upgrade, then go to the next.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Build, upgrade, build, upgrade. The costs are the same, but if you are upgrading as you go you are benefitting from the increased output of the upgraded facilities.

thing is, it takes something like 10 years (100 turns) for most of the city facilites to repay the min/ rad/ org investment of bulding them. Of course there are other benefits that are harder to quantify (shield generation, cargo space, storage, research/ intel output, looking cool) but if you are counting your minerals you probably want to be building nothing but miners anyway. Cities are only for ppl playing the loooooong game.

As a side note, in my single player game I'm about 500 turns in and I have built several megalopoli - some planets have 2 or 3. I also came across an AI world 2 systems away from its homeworld with over 20 major cities and 2000 million ppl on it! This is one well developped AI...

[ February 24, 2003, 16:52: Message edited by: dogscoff ]

[Aloofi]

Originally posted by dogscoff:
[QUOTE]
Build, upgrade, build, upgrade. The costs are the same, but if you are upgrading as you go you are benefitting from the increased output of the upgraded facilities.

...<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">But the output diference between a minor city and a city doesn't seem to be that great.
Are you sure that its not more efficient to build a new minor city than to upgrade a minor city to a city?
In both cases the original minor city its already producing, but building a new one will bring more income into my treasure than the upgrade increase.
I don't have the game here, so when I get back home I'll check the Facility.txt file to get some hard numbers.
This issue its mighty interesting... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[PsychoTechFreak]

Cities are only for ppl playing the loooooong game.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This mod is in particular for the little longterm builders in us, isn't it? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif If I would be asked for the most effective way to win, I guess it would be something like:

-not many planets to develop, just for special facilities like ship training etc.
-remote mining for higher production output
-capture as many home planets as soon as possible

But I think the upgrades should take longer or at least as long as the building from scratch and this is not the case. Upgrades can be abused to save time and material. Wasn't there setting value for upgrade costs, maybe this might be tweaked a bit?

EDIT: I am at about 25 years in my single player game and I can second that the AI does quite a good job, developing worlds, ship designs etc., nice ! Troops and WPs on homeworlds, grrrr http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif

[ February 24, 2003, 17:35: Message edited by: PsychoTechFreak ]

[oleg]

Originally posted by Aloofi:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by dogscoff:
[qb][QUOTE]
Build, upgrade, build, upgrade.
...

This issue its mighty interesting... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes indeed. It comes up every time proportions mod is discussed. Fascinating.

[Fyron]

But I think the upgrades should take longer or at least as long as the building from scratch and this is not the case. Upgrades can be abused to save time and material. Wasn't there setting value for upgrade costs, maybe this might be tweaked a bit?<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I am fairly certain that that was PvK's intention there.

[PsychoTechFreak]

I have noticed a way to reduce building times in 2.5.2 (or 2.5.1, I am not quite sure):

Build a Minor City then upgrade to Metropolis, I guess it would be the same with Megalopolis if it is in the same family. I saves about 30% material and time if you like to do the needed micromanagement, is it intended?

Same thing with research center I, upgrade to research megaplex III and others.

[oleg]

Originally posted by PsychoTechFreak:
I have noticed a way to reduce building times in 2.5.2 (or 2.5.1, I am not quite sure):

Build a Minor City then upgrade to Metropolis, I guess it would be the same with Megalopolis if it is in the same family. I saves about 30% material and time if you like to do the needed micromanagement, is it intended?

Same thing with research center I, upgrade to research megaplex III and others.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This topic has been debated hotly in older Proportions' tread. Yes, upgrading facilities vs building new from scratch can be beneficial but sometimes not. For example, it takes almost forever to fill huge brethable world with cultural facilities. So, in the time you build ciry and upgrade it to metroplolis I can build TWO cities if planetary space is not a problem.

[Aloofi]

Originally posted by PsychoTechFreak:
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif[/img] <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, I saw that too. I'm about 20 years into the game and I tried to take on a neutral Homeworld, and my mighty fleet got cut to pieces. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
They had 50 WP, 10 of them Medium size, over 10 Space stations (mostly armed shipyards), about 40 sats, plus some 300 fighters and.....troops! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

It was amazing, I felt as if I was really taking on a homeworld. I have to handle to PvK and all the others involved making Proportions, its the greatest mod I have ever played in any game. I'm so hooked that I find myself thinking about it when I shouldn't http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif .

By the way, playing without any bonus, the AI out produce me and out research me. Though next time I will play without neutrals. Its too easy to lose 3/4 of my fleet in a battle and then retreat to the neighboring system and be secured because the AI can't attack me there. I'm not playing with neutrals no more. If that have been the Druks I would had probably lost a bunch of colonies until my fleet were able to hold the tide.

[PsychoTechFreak]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">But I think the upgrades should take longer or at least as long as the building from scratch and this is not the case. Upgrades can be abused to save time and material. Wasn't there setting value for upgrade costs, maybe this might be tweaked a bit?<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I am fairly certain that that was PvK's intention there.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Upgrade Facility Cost Percent := 50

Hmm, I mean this is ok for let's say research center 1 to upgrade to research center 3. With the extremely larger differences between e.g. minor city and metropolis or higher it looks like ... cheating? But it is OK, if there are good reasons or other restrictions that I do not see yet.

[Aloofi]

Originally posted by PsychoTechFreak:
[QBUpgrade Facility Cost Percent := 50

Hmm, I mean this is ok for let's say research center 1 to upgrade to research center 3. With the extremely larger differences between e.g. minor city and metropolis or higher it looks like ... cheating? But it is OK, if there are good reasons or other restrictions that I do not see yet.[/QB]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I think its kind of right.
Settlement: 5Kt of each resource
Col. Commun: 10 Kt of each
With 50 % upgrade it takes exactly the same time to build one colonial community than to build a settlement and then upgrade.

On the other hand, the investment return is far better on the lowly settlement than in the Colonial Comm.
Settlement cost: 5000 min.
Settlement prod: 125 min.
Returns investment in 40 turns (4 years)

colonial comm cost: 10 000 min.
colonial comm prod: 150 min.
Returns investment in 66 turns (6 years and 6 months)

Minor city cost: 15 000 min.
Minor city Prod: 175 min.
Returns investment in 85 turns (8 years and a half)

So its obvious that is better to build all the settlements you want first, and then start upgrading.
Still, building cities should be considered something like a personal goal or a show of power. Their output doesn't justifie their cost when you compare them to a mineral miner facility:

Mineral Miner I facility cost: 1800 min.
Mineral Miner I facility prod: 200 min.
Returns investment in 9 turns (9 months) and produce more than a minor city.

Mineral Miner Complex I cost: 11 000 min.
Mineral Miner Complex I prod: 400 min.
Returns investment in 27 turns (2 years and 7 months)

So replicating a Homeworld in a colony its just not impossible, but non-profitable, which I think acurately simulate that many things a Homeworld have are not just for profit, but a product of social and cultural evolution.

[Aloofi]

By the way, those numbers don't include the cost in organics and rads, cause those take over twice as long as minerals to get them back.

Cultural Center cost: 24Mt min.
Cultural Center Prod: 2000 min.
Returns investment in 12000 turns (1200 years) http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[oleg]

That's a beauty of Proportions http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif - sacrifice everything but protect Homeworld from evil aliens.
Last stand of 300 spartans and stuff..

[PsychoTechFreak]

Originally posted by Aloofi:
[QUOTE]Settlement: 5Kt of each resource
Col. Commun: 10 Kt of each
With 50 % upgrade it takes exactly the same time to build one colonial community than to build a settlement and then upgrade.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Sure, in case of the upgraded facility costs twice as much as the starting facility. But it is another story if the difference is more than double value, like from minor city to metropolis for example:

Minor city 15000 (each min/org/rad)
Metropolis 100,000

You build a minor city and upgrade with 50,000 to Metropolis means you pay 65,000 overall, a profit of approx. a third (time and material)

Minor city to Megalopolis (250,000) even more:
15,000 + 125,000 =140,000

But I see, it seems to be a necessary kind of compromise. It does not have to be too expensive, so upgrades would not be worthwile against scrap-and-build, OTOH I think the compromise should be more between 60-80%.
Reasons for that:
-Refurbishing a house to a castle is more expensive than to scrap it and build a castle
-Usually the production output is lower than normal during upgrades, but the city is producing 100% during the upgrade activities

[ February 27, 2003, 08:54: Message edited by: PsychoTechFreak ]

[PvK]

Uuf... I catch the flu and fall way behind on this discussion. Actually, it's probably good to not to be always chiming in immediately, but it will be a while before I can cover everything. I will just throw in some ideas.

* Upgrades and return-on-investment times are generally things I have studied and done deliberately. That is, I expect people to consider upgrading from a city to a metropolis, instead of building a metropolis from scratch. It also makes more sense - metropoli are generally cities for a long time before they become metropoli.

* There is a major effect of lag and return-on-investment to be considered. The question of "which construction path is best?" can only be answered if you first answer the question "how soon do you need a return on your investment?" Often the best thing is to build as many small-scale facilities as possible first, and then build larger facilities one at a time. The dilemma becomes, that this makes the upgrade technique start to become impractical, because SE4 only lets you upgrade ALL facilities of a type at once. So, you end up with a huge spectrum of possible ways to develop, and many of them are "the best" for different times by which you want the return.

* Having said that, I wouldn't consider it "wrong" to increase the facility upgrade cost. I think anything in the 50-100% range will work well. Below 50% will start to cause unintended effects.

* The "upgrade a house to a castle" argument doesn't really apply, I think, because facility "slots" should not be taken to literally represent real estate limits. Planets are enormous, and upgrading from say, a city to a metropolis, does not necessarily require doing anything problematic to the city.

PvK

[dogscoff]

Still, building cities should be considered something like a personal goal or a show of power.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If you're talking purely in terms of mineral production, then yes, but you forget all the other advantages a city facility can provide:
Resource storage
Shield generation
Unit storage
Research, intel, org and rad production
Space port and resupply (in some cities).

These are not to be discounted, especially on those planets or systems where you only have one or two facility slots and you want to cram as much as possible into a limited space. In my single player proportions games the vast majority of my facilities are cities of one kind or another.

[Aloofi]

Well, I was just posting some numbers I took to find out my own building path, but I don't feel like any change needs to be made.
The way I see it, the goal of unreplicable homeworlds have been acomplished, and as I said before, not everything in a city is for profit.
The only change I made on Facilities.txt was to add shields and more cargo space to spaceport facilities to represent the spaceport fortifications that I believe every spaceport should have by default.

One question though, how do you guys feel about adding 3 more shipyards facilities to regular tech comparable to temporal shipyards?
I just think that most racial traits are highly unbalancing.

[PsychoTechFreak]

Originally posted by PvK:
* Upgrades and return-on-investment times are generally things I have studied and done deliberately. That is, I expect people to consider upgrading from a city to a metropolis, instead of building a metropolis from scratch. It also makes more sense - metropoli are generally cities for a long time before they become metropoli.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I understand, some questions pop up on my forehead.
Is the AI somehow programmed/programmable to use similar upgrade paths?
Why did you take the Arcology (350,000) out of the path, I mean it could have a nice place after Megalopolis (250,000)?

Sidenote: It is really hard to capture AI homeworlds even in tactical combat after some 25 years. I guess in simultaneous/PBW it could be a non-capturable fortress with a few WP, troops and long range weapons...
I think, turn-based/tactical for single player is recommendable similar to Pirates&Nomads from my perspective. Mmh, or is it just that I am too bad...

[gregebowman]

Well, reading these Posts is really bumming me out. I hadn't played Proportions yet, and was all set to after downloading the new patch, when my computer got zapped by lightning. Now, it may take me awhile before I get a new one. But reading these Posts gives me the idea that this is one much altered mod that I've got to play when I get a new computer.

[dogscoff]

One question though, how do you guys feel about adding 3 more shipyards facilities to regular tech comparable to temporal shipyards?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Maybe... not really sure about that one. Whatever you do to regular yards, I think the temporal spaceyard definitely needs to remain superior in some way.

Maybe allow some super-high level spaceyards (normal *and* temporal), but the increases in research/ price give diminishing returns in build rates, so that you can spend a century researching and building a level XII yard but only get 6000 build rate out of it. In this case, temporal yards should be 2 or 3 levels ahead of normal ones in terms of price and research cost, or make them comparatively expensive/ innefficient for the lower levels but the better option as you start to get to the higher build rates.

What I would really like to see is greater use of the repair ability on facilities: Distribution centres could have a repair rate of 1, and maybe the space port + resupply combo facility too. Also, how about a range of "repair yard" facilities that can be built alongside/ instead of space yards to help get all those damaged fleets repaired? Sure, you might end up with a huge breathable repairing 60+ components per turn, but given the premium value of facility slots in Proportions I don't think this could be considered an abuse/ exploit, especially with the armour getting leakier and leakier in this mod http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[oleg]

Originally posted by PsychoTechFreak:

Is the AI somehow programmed/programmable to use similar upgrade paths?
...[/QB]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Up to a point. I tried to disperse Colonial tech so AI will have time to build minor cities on first colonised planets and then upgrade to cities+ It worked http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif But once AI reseacrh high level buildings it starts to build them from scratch.

Hmm... I think there is a way around it: PvK should assign different bogus ability to high level cities. Then if only minor cities bogus ability is used in construction_facilities, AI will always follow build-upgrade path ! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[JLS]

Originally posted by PvK:
Uuf... I catch the flu and fall way behind on this discussion.
PvK<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Good to see you back and well !

[Aloofi]

Originally posted by dogscoff:
[
What I would really like to see is greater use of the repair ability on facilities: Distribution centres could have a repair rate of 1, and maybe the space port + resupply combo facility too. Also, how about a range of "repair yard" facilities that can be built alongside/ instead of space yards to help get all those damaged fleets repaired? Sure, you might end up with a huge breathable repairing 60+ components per turn, but given the premium value of facility slots in Proportions I don't think this could be considered an abuse/ exploit, especially with the armour getting leakier and leakier in this mod http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That is a very good idea. I think all Spaceports should repair 5 comp per turns. Or 3.
Maybe the new levels of shipyards that i had in mind should not have that much of a building capacity increase but instead a huge repairing bonus.....maybe 10 components per turn or more?

[Aloofi]

Originally posted by gregebowman:
Well, reading these Posts is really bumming me out. But reading these Posts gives me the idea that this is one much altered mod that I've got to play when I get a new computer.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You don't know what you are missing! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
Proportions plays completely diferent. I never built any space shipyard base in the unmodded game, but in proportions you need to build them because your new colonies are real colonies, with a very low building capacity. Your Homeworld looks like a real homeworld, with an Orbital Ring of Shipyard Bases, huge cultural centers to represent the diferent cultures that make a race (think of countries) and your Homeworld produces the lion share of resources your empire gets.
And forget about those easy battles to conquer a Homeworld, in Proportions they can have a zillion WP defending them, as well as fighters and even troops. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[oleg]

Originally posted by PsychoTechFreak:
Sidenote: It is really hard to capture AI homeworlds even in tactical combat after some 25 years. I guess in simultaneous/PBW it could be a non-capturable fortress with a few WP, troops and long range weapons...
I think, turn-based/tactical for single player is recommendable similar to Pirates&Nomads from my perspective. Mmh, or is it just that I am too bad...[/QB]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Did't yet attempt to capture developed planets with latest 1.84 patch. It has a new feature(bug fix): WP die first, before troops. Prior to 1.84 it was almost impossible to slesh through infantry to kill WP and one can loose hundreds of ships. How is it now ?

[gregebowman]

Originally posted by Aloofi:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by gregebowman:
Well, reading these Posts is really bumming me out. But reading these Posts gives me the idea that this is one much altered mod that I've got to play when I get a new computer.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You don't know what you are missing! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
Proportions plays completely diferent. I never built any space shipyard base in the unmodded game, but in proportions you need to build them because your new colonies are real colonies, with a very low building capacity. Your Homeworld looks like a real homeworld, with an Orbital Ring of Shipyard Bases, huge cultural centers to represent the diferent cultures that make a race (think of countries) and your Homeworld produces the lion share of resources your empire gets.
And forget about those easy battles to conquer a Homeworld, in Proportions they can have a zillion WP defending them, as well as fighters and even troops. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Like I mentioned earlier, it does sound like fun. Is there some sort of strategy guide for this mod, or do I just have to read all of the Posts in this thread?

[Aloofi]

I've been thinking about putting in some "Atmospheric Bombers" and probably some fighters to be dropped on a planet like troops.

I was wondering which bonus they should have, to simulate air attacks on ground units.

Humm.... i think this is an overkill. When a regular fighter fires on a planet they are already doing this.

Oh well,....

[oleg]

Originally posted by gregebowman:
Like I mentioned earlier, it does sound like fun. Is there some sort of strategy guide for this mod, or do I just have to read all of the Posts in this thread?[/QB]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">PvK gives good instructions in readme file you will get with download from his webpage.
You'll need the latest Version - 2.5.3

[PvK]

Latest Version is 2.5.3.1.

Aloofi, you might want to consider fighters with cluster bombs for planetary attacks. Of course, you might also want to be careful not to wipe out the colony entirely. ;-)

Homeworlds are supposed to be very difficult to capture, naturally. This is both a realism issue, and a game balance issue, since capturing an intact or even semi-intact homeworld can give the captor a critical advantage over all empires with only one homeworld. However, it's quite possible (though certainly not easy without a very strong and appropriate force) to take one from the AI, or an unprepared player (humans are tempted to deploy outward rather than stock up on home defense that might never be tested).

I may add some more repair and construction levels and variations in a future Version, if/when I get to it. However, I tend to think that bases with construction and repair components provide plenty of ability to do this, and I like that they have a maintenance cost, a separate presence/target in combat, don't compete for facility slots, and don't remove the interesting obstacle and balance factor of having a signifigant time requirement to build major units and facilities. If it's possible to get a really big planetary construction rate, then it sort of erodes the balance and interesting limit on how long it takes to build the more expensive items. I like Dogscoff's suggestion of adding levels with diminishing returns. I had been thinking of adding more wimpy starting levels and a slower progression to the current levels, too, so construction becomes a more interesting choice for major research (or not).

Temporal tech has a major advantage there, but are you saying that their advantages are better than other racial techs', or better than 1500 points spent on other advantages? So far, I don't really see any of the racial techs as being clearly more powerful than the others. JLS was helping me evaluate that a bit, though I think one or both of us sort of forgot about doing that, or maybe an email didn't get through.

I'd be interested to hear from players who have tried a Temporal empire in Proportions - what were your game settings, how long did it take you to develop temporal spaceyards, and how much of an advantage did it seem to be once you got them?

PTF, Arcology is not on the urban upgrade path for two reasons. Firstly, the upgrade benefit of going from Minor City to Arcology seemed too much to me at 50% upgrade cost. Secondly, an Arcology is really not just a larger Megalopolis. You can't pile a bunch of megabuildings on top of a Megalopolis and get and Arcology (instead, you'd get two Megalopoli). An Arcology is something quite different, and has to be built from the ground up (also, it has cool new pics courtesy of Bill Elliott (mlmbd) http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ).

PvK

[JLS]

Originally posted by PvK:
Latest Version is 2.5.3.1.

JLS was helping me evaluate that a bit, though I think one or both of us sort of forgot about doing that, or maybe an email didn't get through.
PvK<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I remember we were talking about race balance, I sent you a list with a brief eval. of currant Racial Facilities…. As you recall I felt in BASE SE4 the Psychics got a bum deal with facilities and that religious trait is a possibly a very strong second selection http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

In regards to Temporal Ship yards if called by (Palace): We discussed that late in the game the Temporal AI may get in trouble with Net resources by investing 3500 to 4500 Minerals a turn just to build a ship that has 400 to 1500 Maintenance.
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ February 27, 2003, 22:58: Message edited by: JLS ]

[dogscoff]

I'd be interested to hear from players who have tried a Temporal empire in Proportions - what were your game settings, how long did it take you to develop temporal spaceyards, and how much of an advantage did it seem to be once you got them?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'm playing one now. It took me a few hundred turns to get it, but it has been a hard game. It is really nice having such a huge construction potential- I can turn out a battlecruiser in 3 turns at my homeworld- but what with my limited economy and the fact that my existing ships never seem to die (due to the leaky armour effects) I don't build that many new ships. I tend to just upgrade the old ones, and occasionally throw out little escorts and scouts to top up my harrassment fleet.

Building temporal yards on new colonies takes forever, and by the time the low-pop modifiers have been applied, they don't seem so great anyway- even with 80 million pop, they still only build 4 or 5 small troops in a turn.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that temporal yards don't seem to be over-powerful, imho. PvK: I can send you the savegame if you like. It's an interesting game for a number of reasons, not least the AI's state after four or five hundred turns...

[Aloofi]

I'm confused with the armor, do the armor abilities stack?
If I put in a design 3 armored structures of the same kind that negates 3 damage per shot each will I get a total 9 damage negated?

[oleg]

Originally posted by Aloofi:
I'm confused with the armor, do the armor abilities stack?
If I put in a design 3 armored structures of the same kind that negates 3 damage per shot each will I get a total 9 damage negated?<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No. Emmisive armor abilities do not stack. Only crystalline and organic abilities stack.

[Aloofi]

Originally posted by oleg:
No. Emmisive armor abilities do not stack. Only crystalline and organic abilities stack.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wait wait, this one is just the regular armor in Proportions, Armored Structure III, and it says that it deflects 3 damage per shot.

[dogscoff]

Wait wait, this one is just the regular armor in Proportions, Armored Structure III, and it says that it deflects 3 damage per shot.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yeah, PvK has smeared the emissive ability all over the armour techs. I kinda like it this way. For the highest emmissive abilities, put in some of that armour that requires scaling.

[JLS]

Originally posted by dogscoff:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
I'd be interested to hear from players who have tried a Temporal empire in Proportions<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I guess what I'm trying to say is that temporal yards don't seem to be over-powerful, imho. PvK:</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I agree with dogscoff; the guys that play Temporal in our LAN group also don't put much stock in the Temporal Yard Facility with the exception of just building it at the Home World.

[Aloofi]

Originally posted by dogscoff:
[]
Yeah, PvK has smeared the emissive ability all over the armour techs. I kinda like it this way. For the highest emmissive abilities, put in some of that armour that requires scaling.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">So you are saying that its pointless to have more than one armor structure?
I was using the scaled Armor Plating II and 3 armor structures.....
What if I put one Armor Structure III, one Advanced Armor Structure II and one Ultra Armor Structure II?
Will they stack?

[dogscoff]

I can't say for sure but I'm pretty sure there will be no stacking at all under any circumstances. The highest available value is used.

This means the optimal design would be one "scaled armour" (can't remember the proper name) and a bunch of armoured structures. The armoured structures will take damage first (usually, since they have the higher damage resistance) and benefit from the emmissive value of the scaled armour. That will make for a damn tough ship. The only reason to have >1 scaled armour is as a backup, in case the first gets wasted by a lucky hit.

[oleg]

Yes, there is no stacking from different types of components. The highest value is still in Emmisive armour. You may want to have one in addition to internal armours.

[PvK]

Yep. I think there are several valid types of armor design, depending on what you want, who you're fighting, how large your ship is, how much design space you're willing to devote, and how much you're willing to pay.

Structure types are mainly good for giving a design a lot of ability to absorb damage, and can be very cost-effective and/or very space-effective, but doesn't guarantee protection (e.g. the bridge could still get hit on the first shot). Adding several low-tech armored structure components to a design is a cheap and effective way to give it a good level of protection.

Standard Plating is scale mounted and not hit first - its main purpose is to give a high emissive effect, deflecting a certain amount per hit. Only the highest emissive effect on an undestroyed component is used - they never add. Standard plating's potential damage deflection is effectively multiplied by the total amount of (not "hit first") structure the ship has, so it is more effective when combined with armored structure.

Special plating is scale mounted but unlike standard plating it is hit first. It offers the highest levels of emissive effect, and the highest defense bonuses, but when hit with most weapons it will get destroyed before structure, functional components, and standard plating. However, you can combine it with other hit-first armor types to prolong its life and thus multiply its effects. E.g., one or more scale-mounted emissive armor components combined with several ablative armor components.

PvK

[ February 28, 2003, 19:32: Message edited by: PvK ]

[Aloofi]

PvK, I have one scaled Ultra Armor Plating component that reflects 13 damage, a regenerating shield generator 1 with 175 shield points that generated 7 points per combat turn, and 3 components of Ultra armored structure (not the scaled one) that reflects 6 damage each.
Now what its suppose to happen here and which components do what and which one get hit first and which one gets destroyed first.
Because I really don't understand how this works. Maybe because I'm not very intelligent, but I'm trying to improve. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[oleg]

There is always an element of dice roll what components will be destroyed first. But more or lesss documented trend is that bigger components have a higher chance to score a hit then smaller one. (reverse is true for armor and it is NOT components that have an "armor" name in description or "armor" picture but one that have "destroyed before other" as an ability. For example organic armour is armour but standard armor in Proportions is NOT. Actually it would be better if PvK remove "armour" word all together from the description of all such components and replace with "reinforced hull" or something for clarity sake)

[oleg]

Norak does not design Population transports.
Reason is simple:
"must have ability 1" should be "cargo storage", not "star - unstable"
Here is modified Norak_AI_designcreation.txt
1046567994.txt (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/newuploads/1046567994.txt)

Kind of silly to load whole file because of two words http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif but it WILL help Norak AI ! Some other races may have same problem, did't check all.

[PvK]

Originally posted by Aloofi:
PvK, I have one scaled Ultra Armor Plating component that reflects 13 damage, a regenerating shield generator 1 with 175 shield points that generated 7 points per combat turn, and 3 components of Ultra armored structure (not the scaled one) that reflects 6 damage each.
Now what its suppose to happen here and which components do what and which one get hit first and which one gets destroyed first.
Because I really don't understand how this works. Maybe because I'm not very intelligent, but I'm trying to improve. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, it is complicated and very unpredictable.

For a normal hit, damage is first applied to shields. Any remaining damage is then reduced by the emissive effect of the undestroyed component which has the highest emissive effect. Any damage from that hit left after that is then applied to a random "hit first" component - chosen from any "hit first" component that can be completely destroyed in one shot, if any. Then any damage remaining from that one hit after all "hit first" components have destroyed, is applied randomly against a non-hit-first component, such as functional components, armored structure and non-specialized armored plating like you chose. The random procedure for determining which one of these is hit does not choose killable-in-one-hit first, and is weighted by the size of the component. (So if your ship above is a cruiser, you'll have 220 + 3 x 210 = 850 in armor, and perhaps 600 in functional components, so the chance your first hit will strike armored structure or plating instead of anything functional is 850/(600 + 850) = 59%.

For a more complete example, say your ship has so far been unharmed, when it gets hit by eight bLasts from a Large-mounted Meson BLaster V, which does 60 points of normal damage per hit, in one turn.

The first two will be completely stopped by shields, reducing your shields 120 points, to 55.

The third hit will remove the 55 shields, and 5 hits will get through but will be deflected completely by your highest emissive rating of 13.

The fourth hit will first be reduced by your highest emissive rating of 13, to 47. If you had any "hit first" armor, it would be hit by this, but you don't, so the damage of this will start piling up against any one of the components on your ship, determined randomly but weighted proportional to the structure the component takes up on the ship. Your Ultra Armored Structure probably has the lion's share of your structure (depending on how big your ship is), so it is most likely to be hit, but not destroyed.

The remaining four hits will very probably not have hit and destroyed your armored plating, so they will all be reduced by 13 each, so your total damage will probably be 47 x 5 = 235. Assuming your armored structure was hit first, your Ultra Amored Structure will take either 210 or 240 damage per component, so if it was Mark I armor, you'll have one damaged component, or if you have Mark II armor, no damaged components (but be only 5 points away from losing one component). If you take no more damage during the battle, you might end up with no damaged components.

If your armored plating does get hit (looks like it'd be Advanced Armor Plating II if it's deflecting 13/hit), then its structure rating is proportional to your ship size. If this is a Cruiser, it can withstand 220 damage before it breaks down. If that happens, then subsequent hits will only be reduced by your highest undestroyed emissive effect (6/hit).

Next turn, if your shield generator wasn't hit, you'll get 7 points of shields. If you aren't hit again, you'll have 14 points of shields on the next turn, and so on (175 max).

That should be as clear as vector calculus now... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

PvK

[Aloofi]

Thanks for the responses.
Now I have another question (sorry for so many questions http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif )
What would be the ideal armor composition?
Without worrying about price and weight, I would like to now if an scaled "Ultra Armor Plating I" that deflects 14 damage per hit with 4 Ablatative Armor V components that are hit-first is better than the same scaled armor with 4 of the non scaled Ultra Armor structure that deflects 6 per hit but are not hit-first.

[Aloofi]

Originally posted by oleg:
Norak does not design Population transports.
Reason is simple:
"must have ability 1" should be "cargo storage", not "star - unstable"
Here is modified Norak_AI_designcreation.txt
1046567994.txt (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/newuploads/1046567994.txt)

Kind of silly to load whole file because of two words http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif but it WILL help Norak AI ! Some other races may have same problem, did't check all.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Can I change this by hand?

[oleg]

yes, sure. Go to Proportions/pictures/races/norak
open norak_ai_designcreation.txt in wordpad or some other text editor. Find the design of population transport (use "find" option in "edit" menue, use population transport as search words, 3rd hit will point you to the actual design I think). One line should be like
must have ability1 := star - unstable
replace star - unstable with "cargo storage". Save file and start playing. It will take affect in
existing games as well. No need to start a new game.

[ March 03, 2003, 14:44: Message edited by: oleg ]

[Aloofi]

Oleg, I also noticed that the Neutral Races are not colonizing, have you seen this?
In this case it was Neutral #1, the Bobrosa States.
Oh, and they were using the Starliner hull as a regular transport (and thus slower) for minelaying/sweeping and troop transport.
Though it might have been because the Starliner its avaliable first than the Medium Transport....

[oleg]

No idea. Actually I never played Proportions with neutrals. Did't see the point, why not just add one more race ?

That one particular race - turn it unto your control and check if Colonizer design exist. If not, copy and paste colonizer designs from design.txt file of the race that does make colonizers.

[oleg]

OK, I think the problem is in AI_construction_vehicles.txt file. In contrast to "normal" AI, neutrals have "colonizer" entry only in explore and not connected states. If for some reason AI in any other state, it won't build colony ships. Here is my quick fix:
1046742418.txt (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/newuploads/1046742418.txt)

Replace neutral001_AI_construction_vehicles.txt with this new file. (proportions/pictures/raceneutrals/neutral001 folder. If it fixes the problem, other neutrals should have this file too !!

[PvK]

Thanks Oleg! I have seen Neutrals colonizing before... I think maybe I set them up that way so that they wouldn't necessarily always keep a redundant colonizer on hand after they had colonized all the planets in their home system. But, with a couple of patches introduced since then, and in general, this may be an improvement.

As for Aloofi's follow-up question:

Originally posted by Aloofi:
Thanks for the responses.
Now I have another question (sorry for so many questions http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif )
What would be the ideal armor composition?
Without worrying about price and weight, I would like to now if an scaled "Ultra Armor Plating I" that deflects 14 damage per hit with 4 Ablatative Armor V components that are hit-first is better than the same scaled armor with 4 of the non scaled Ultra Armor structure that deflects 6 per hit but are not hit-first.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It depends on what you're fighting, and what your goal is for the design. The Ultra Amored Structure will probably give you the most indestructible ship, but it costs a LOT. Ablative armor is quite affordable, and has the advantage that it is hit first, so it has to all be destroyed before you have a chance of losing a vital component like the bridge, or your combat sensors. The more expensive ship might get unlucky and be crippled by a single medium damage hit in just the right place. The armored plating though tends to go best with a lot of armored structure, or a whole ton of ablative armor. Ablative armor is also really good for combining with other hit-first types like emissive, stealth, or scattering scale-mounted armor. So, it's really a matter of what you want, how much you want to pay per ship, and what you're fighting.

PvK

[Aloofi]

Originally posted by oleg:
No idea. Actually I never played Proportions with neutrals. Did't see the point, why not just add one more race ?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yeah, I agree. Neutrals are nothing more than a bonus to the human player. The problem was that I realized that when I was already into the current game...... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

[Aloofi]

Originally posted by oleg:
Norak does not design Population transports.
Reason is simple:
"must have ability 1" should be "cargo storage", not "star - unstable"
Here is modified Norak_AI_designcreation.txt
1046567994.txt (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/newuploads/1046567994.txt)

Kind of silly to load whole file because of two words http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif but it WILL help Norak AI ! Some other races may have same problem, did't check all.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Oleg, why all transport have the star-unstable ability?
Is that the way it should be?

[Aloofi]

Originally posted by PvK:

The armored plating though tends to go best with a lot of armored structure, or a whole ton of ablative armor. Ablative armor is also really good for combining with other hit-first types like emissive, stealth, or scattering scale-mounted armor. So, it's really a matter of what you want, how much you want to pay per ship, and what you're fighting.

PvK<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Thanks. I replaced the armored structure with Ablatative armor.
Now I have my three BattleCruisers with one scaled Ultra Armored Plating and four Ablatative armor components.
The problem was that the hits were going through my previous armor of Ultra Armored Plating and Ultra Armored Structure.

[Aloofi]

Originally posted by oleg:
OK, I think the problem is in AI_construction_vehicles.txt file. In contrast to "normal" AI, neutrals have "colonizer" entry only in explore and not connected states. If for some reason AI in any other state, it won't build colony ships. Here is my quick fix:
1046742418.txt (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/newuploads/1046742418.txt)

Replace neutral001_AI_construction_vehicles.txt with this new file. (proportions/pictures/raceneutrals/neutral001 folder. If it fixes the problem, other neutrals should have this file too !!<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Thanks. I'm sure this was the problem. Both Neutrals I've seen were under constant attack. The AI state probably was in short or long term defense.

[oleg]

Originally posted by Aloofi:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by oleg:
Norak does not design Population transports.
Reason is simple:
"must have ability 1" should be "cargo storage", not "star - unstable"
Here is modified Norak_AI_designcreation.txt
1046567994.txt (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/newuploads/1046567994.txt)

Kind of silly to load whole file because of two words http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif but it WILL help Norak AI ! Some other races may have same problem, did't check all.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Oleg, why all transport have the star-unstable ability?
Is that the way it should be?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually no http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif here is why : when AI see "cargo storage" ability, it uses the component with highest value. This is fine untill it discovers "population module" or what is name ? - the big 400K module with capacity 1M. Now, it can not use standard cargo bays on troop transports, carriers, etc.

One way around is instruct AI not to research these modules at all. But I thought it is just not cool http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Thus, PvK introduced special bogus ability for cargo bays I - "star unstable" Now AI can use them if you use this new ability in design_creation. There is a catch though - for AI to use transport hull design should have
"must have ability1 := cargo storage" if you replace it with "star - unstable" here, AI will not pick up transport hulls. This is all quite complicated but I think I get it sorted in my AIs and in fact it makes AI modding more exiting !

[Aloofi]

Originally posted by oleg:
[QB
There is a catch though - for AI to use transport hull design should have
"must have ability1 := cargo storage" if you replace it with "star - unstable" here, AI will not pick up transport hulls. This is all quite complicated but I think I get it sorted in my AIs and in fact it makes AI modding more exiting ![/QB]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Lol, this explanation alone gave me a headache. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
But now I know how to mess around with the AI designs....Muuuaaaaaaahhhhh. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[dogscoff]

Yeah, I agree. Neutrals are nothing more than a bonus to the human player.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">In the standard game, yes, but not so much in Proportions. Their homeworlds are as good as anyone else's and I have fought long drawn out campaigns against them, because they have to concentrate their defences in one system unlike regular empires who spread themselves thin across many systems.

True, there's nothing to stop you parking a fleet just on the wrong side of their warp point and dumping drones on them, but neutrals in proportions are by no means easy meat.

[JLS]

Originally posted by dogscoff:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
Yeah, I agree. Neutrals are nothing more than a bonus to the human player.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">In the standard game, yes, but not so much in Proportions. Their homeworlds are as good as anyone else's and I have fought long drawn out campaigns against them, because they have to concentrate their defences in one system unlike regular empires who spread themselves thin across many systems.

True, there's nothing to stop you parking a fleet just on the wrong side of their warp point and dumping drones on them, but neutrals in proportions are by no means easy meat.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually all you need is about 6+ Carriers with 40% Fighters, 40% Fighter-Bombers some Anti ship/Base, and 20% Cluster bombers a few Troopships full off infantry. From as much as one sector away from the AI Home World. (assuming your Fighter techs is comparable to there ship/base techs).

Fighters set (Strat Menu) to engage Fighters, Sats and Ships etc. (NOT PLANETS)

Fighter Bombers set default (Optimal Range) or make your own avoiding planets as well.

Cluster Bombers also set (to Optimal range, but there only carrying Cluster bombs only and should have at least one Combat movement (preferred) slower then other fighters.
~
1st Wave: Send Fighters and Fighter/Bombers with enough Fighter Bombers (some fighters also if AI CVs are present) to defend the fleet. (Fleet remains on station with relative impunity about a sector away) This wave should take out most to all Bases and Ships the AI has over its home world. How ever you may loose a great deal of your Fighter bombers, unless you avoid engaging planets with them as well. In that wave.

2nd Wave: Launch but do NOT send Cluster bombers with first wave. Time that wave to attack the turn after the first wave. You should have Fighter cover left from the previous turns attack for your cluster bombers. (keep a careful eye on any reinforcement the AI may bring to bare and strike there ships with Fighter-bombers from afar).

Third turn:
With the right amount of cluster bombers getting thru to the Planet (Observe that battle report and/or check the planets Last Unit cargo) you should now be ready to send in your main body with Troop Ships and a few Thousand Infantry (Fleet orders Capture Planet), be sure to have transports from the Home System ferrying troops on a regular bases, it may take in access of 6000-10000 infantry to capture a Home World in fair order.

[ March 04, 2003, 14:56: Message edited by: JLS ]

[Aloofi]

Originally posted by dogscoff:
In the standard game, yes, but not so much in Proportions. Their homeworlds are as good as anyone else's and I have fought long drawn out campaigns against them, because they have to concentrate their defences in one system unlike regular empires who spread themselves thin across many systems.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The problem is that you can be at war with them for a long time and they can't attack you outside their system. That's the main issue I see with Neutrals.

On the other hand, is true that their defenses are impresive. I haven't attacked a regular AI Homeworld yet, so i can't compare, but it took me 3 assaults and 3 years of blockade to take the Bobrosa States Homeworld. They had over 60 WP including Medium sized ones. At the end I only conquered them when I retrofited 10 of my Destroyers as PDCs, and 2 as Fast Troop Carriers. Their weakness was in that the mayority of their WP were Missiles.
I will mess the AI design files so they build more WP with Meson BLasters.

[henk brouwer]

Originally posted by Aloofi:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by oleg:
No idea. Actually I never played Proportions with neutrals. Did't see the point, why not just add one more race ?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yeah, I agree. Neutrals are nothing more than a bonus to the human player. The problem was that I realized that when I was already into the current game...... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Maybe it would be fun to mod the neutrals so they have special techs.. something like the master of orion guardian. problem would be that there can't be a tech-reward for destroying them
Maybe you could let them have a couple of special buildings on their homeworld that you could capture, a ship training facility that trains upto 40% or something.. anyhow just some ideas..

Henk

[Aloofi]

Originally posted by JLS:
2nd Wave: Launch but do NOT send Cluster bombers with first wave. Time that wave to attack the turn after the first wave. You should have Fighter cover left from the previous turns attack for your cluster bombers. (keep a careful eye on any reinforcement the AI may bring to bare and strike there ships with Fighter-bombers from afar).

Third turn:
With the right amount of cluster bombers getting thru to the Planet (Observe that battle report and/or check the planets Last Unit cargo) you should now be ready to send in your main body with Troop Ships and a few Thousand Infantry (Fleet orders Capture Planet), be sure to have transports from the Home System ferrying troops on a regular bases, it may take in access of 6000-10000 infantry to capture a Home World in fair order.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That sounds like an epic battle!

[Aloofi]

Originally posted by henk brouwer:
Maybe it would be fun to mod the neutrals so they have special techs.. something like the master of orion guardian. problem would be that there can't be a tech-reward for destroying them
Maybe you could let them have a couple of special buildings on their homeworld that you could capture, a ship training facility that trains upto 40% or something.. anyhow just some ideas..

Henk<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Nah, that would be just more bonus for the human player. In any case, I would make them more unrewarding than they are now.
Basicly, the current game is the Last game I'll play with Neutrals. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[JLS]

Originally posted by Aloofi:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by JLS:
2nd Wave: Launch but do NOT send Cluster bombers with first wave. Time that wave to attack the turn after the first wave. You should have Fighter cover left from the previous turns attack for your cluster bombers. (keep a careful eye on any reinforcement the AI may bring to bare and strike there ships with Fighter-bombers from afar).

Third turn:
With the right amount of cluster bombers getting thru to the Planet (Observe that battle report and/or check the planets Last Unit cargo) you should now be ready to send in your main body with Troop Ships and a few Thousand Infantry (Fleet orders Capture Planet), be sure to have transports from the Home System ferrying troops on a regular bases, it may take in access of 6000-10000 infantry to capture a Home World in fair order.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That sounds like an epic battle!</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This won't work with an experienced Proportions Human player so be on gaurd in multiplayer, he will launch from his planet first on your fleet taking out EVERY THING!!!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

So park outside your intended target system and send a SCOUT (always scout first, scout everything if not just to keep him guessing)
(Waist a scout so you can count the planets fighter reserves first) http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
And if you catch the Human napping; with not enough Home World Fighter reserves and low Point-Defense on WPs!
1,2,3 maybe 4 and with so little income with the Home World Blockaded and Contested: it's OVER http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Send me the subjugation papers and where do I sign. So sad http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

[ March 04, 2003, 17:05: Message edited by: JLS ]

[JLS]

This won't work with an experienced Proportions Human player so be on gaurd in multiplayer, he will launch from his planet first on your fleet taking out EVERY THING!!!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

So park outside your intended target system and send a SCOUT (always scout first, scout everything if not just to keep him guessing)
(Waist a scout so you can count the planets fighter reserves first) http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
And if you catch the Human naping, with no Home World Fighter researves; it's OVER http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif
~
Actually this sounds like the USA position now, with so many of our Fighter Groups abroad. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

[ March 04, 2003, 17:27: Message edited by: JLS ]

[JLS]

No matter how you stack umm, its tuff to beat PvKs Proportions many options of Play.
I believe that is why this Mod will endure.!
And to most that play Proportions, is the GAME from the GAME.

[ March 04, 2003, 16:07: Message edited by: JLS ]

[JLS]

See that, for over a year some have been trying to get me to Post.

Now, I can’t stop.

[Aloofi]

My current game is in turn 123, and yesterday I did an AI design check, and it turns out that the Cue Cappa AI have small troops with infantry weapons, and every single ship have the master Computer component that cost 4000 minereals!
And still they are ranking number 2 in scores....

[oleg]

Originally posted by Aloofi:
My current game is in turn 123, and yesterday I did an AI design check, and it turns out that the Cue Cappa AI have small troops with infantry weapons, ....<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This is certainly an bug in their design_creation file, JLS should fix it http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[dogscoff]

And to most that play Proportions, is the GAME from the GAME.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Agreed. IMHO this is how 4X games are supposed to be played- Once you've tried Proportions, there's no going back. I have some unmodded multiplayer games going and they just don't interest me any more. Proportions though... this is how it should be.

[JLS]

Originally posted by Aloofi:
My current game is in turn 123, and yesterday I did an AI design check, and it turns out that the Cue Cappa AI have small troops with infantry weapons, and every single ship have the master Computer component that cost 4000 minereals!
And still they are ranking number 2 in scores....<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I will look into the Master Computer for Cue Cappa………....
ALOOFI, If you notice the Cue Cappa does NOT ask for Master Computer in its design file!
Is the Cue Cappa the Only AI race that is using Master Computer in your Proportions game. What are the other AI races in your game?

I believe Oleg brought this to PvK attention in a earlier post, if you follow this thread down. It may be a related v1.84 SE4 patch, if so PvK will have to make some upgrade changes (Difficult for Pvk to keep up with some SE4 patches in regards to breaking long standing games) this may be taking care of in Proportions 3.00.

In regards to score, ALOOFI; BUILD MORE SHIPS, BASES and/or Star liners and Colony ships and this will drive your score up in your Proportions game http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ March 05, 2003, 17:07: Message edited by: JLS ]

[JLS]

Originally posted by oleg:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Aloofi:
My current game is in turn 123, and yesterday I did an AI design check, and it turns out that the Cue Cappa AI have small troops with infantry weapons, ....<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This is certainly an bug in their design_creation file, JLS should fix it http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Bug in my Design file, I think not http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Troop A/K/A~AFV
Tested GO: in AI simulated troop unit weapons test :
Wooow that tank looks GOOOD http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Further design tests:
AFV
Primary weapon =AFV Telekinetic Projector :GO
Backup Primary Weapon=Small Arms : GO (See note for backup *)
* Same as existing Terran, Xi Chun and other Design files possible future expansion possibilities!

Further Research versus AI Weapons Call Check: GO
1: AFV Telekinetic Projector (Weapon Family := 3113) : GO
Tech Area Req 1 := Psychic Weapons
Tech Level Req 1 := 1
Tech Area Req 2 := Smaller Weapons
Tech Level Req 2 := 1
Tech Area Req 3 := Troops
Tech Level Req 3 := 1

Existing Research tree for Cue Cappa in correct order: GO

Psychic Weapons : GO

Smaller Weapons : GO

Troops : GO

Himmm???? I still can’t find or duplicate your situation?

What point game is it 2k,3k,5k? and did you shut any tech areas down?
~
Also on a curious note, what level research is your setup.? With only 123 turns elapsed seems kind of a short span to get to Troops that soon. Troop is about 25% down the research tree. Not to mention Computers even further down the that tree.

[ March 05, 2003, 16:56: Message edited by: JLS ]

[JLS]

Side note: If Proportion 2.53 is not set up for v1.84 SE4 patch as Oleg mentioned earlier, my question is this.
1: Would you rather your AI NOT have Advanced computer facilities so they do not load Master Computer.
2: or AI HAVE Advanced computer facilities and do load Master Computer.

My answer is 2 HAVE, the benefits in Advanced Computers out way the use of Master Computers on the ships. True most design files are not optimized for the Master Computers as they are but in them self have some ship benefits, don’t you agree.

At least until PvK ketches up to the v1.84 SE4 Patch. Between work, raising a family, other hobbies; Play testing the patch as it applies to Proportions and then actually releasing it.

[ March 05, 2003, 17:31: Message edited by: JLS ]

[Aloofi]

Oh, I'm afraid I did shut down severals tech.
Psychic
Religious
Temporal
Stellar Manipulation
and Warp tech

And only 2000 racial points.

[JLS]

Originally posted by Aloofi:
Oh, I'm afraid I did shut down severals tech.
Psychic
Religious
Temporal
Stellar Manipulation
and Warp tech

And only 2000 racial points.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Thats it http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
you shut down Psychic....
~
No prob http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ March 05, 2003, 17:26: Message edited by: JLS ]

[Aloofi]

I also lowered the research points needed for Troops and fighters to about half.
And I eliminated the self-destruct device, added Heavy Infantry betwwen Infantry and Elite Infantry, plus some 20 more little changes, like Quantum Reactors to a max of 20 000 supplies instead of endless, warships hulls desproportionaly higher price as they get bigger, etc.
But I didn't touch the Master Computer... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[Aloofi]

Originally posted by JLS:
Thats it http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
you shut down Psychic....
~
No prob http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Do you mean that if I shut down psychic the Psychic races will always go for that pricey Master Computer?
I checked the Amonkrie and they were doing fine. The only bad thing I saw was a Shipyard ship with a Battlecruiser hull instead of the far cheaper Medium Transport hull.
Is there anything I can do to fix that without messing the current game?

[PvK]

The Master Computer thing is a problem for the AI, not just in Proportions but in Gold Patch 3. MM's hard-coded change to always use MC assumes that's always a good idea, and it isn't.

It's sort of like the phased shields thing. Someone mentioned an AI was using unphased shields and getting killed by his PPB's... there's no perfect solution, because there is no way to program the AI to _adapt_ to enemy deployments. At least in Proportions PPB's are a major research (and resource) investment to get the very effective Versions, and the AI will eventually use phased shields.

Master Computers are generally not worth the high expense except maybe with very large ships, even in the unmodded game. Unless, of course, there are allegiance subverters around, in which case they can be indispensible. Their complete block of subverter weapons makes a solution even harder. Unless/until we get a change from MM, we're left with either disadvantaging all AI, or disadvantaging all psychics. I'd probably choose the latter, perhaps by giving AI some racial tech which makes designs immune at a lower cost than an MC. Unless someone knows of a way to increase resistance to subverters (more/stronger vehicle control components?).

Troops (AFV) shouldn't be allowed to put "small arms" components on them - humans can't do it. If the AI are managing to do so, it's a minor bug, but not IMO a big deal, since the AI could generally use a boost compared to human skills at deploying troops. It's not an very big advantage, since they have to develop AFV's to get it anyway, and it's not really superior to using AFV components, except somewhat at certain tech levels, perhaps.

PvK

[JLS]

Originally posted by Aloofi:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by JLS:
Thats it http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
you shut down Psychic....
~
No prob http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Do you mean that if I shut down psychic the Psychic races will always go for that pricey Master Computer?
I checked the Amonkrie and they were doing fine. The only bad thing I saw was a Shipyard ship with a Battlecruiser hull instead of the far cheaper Medium Transport hull.
Is there anything I can do to fix that without messing the current game?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">In regards to troops the Cue Cappa are designed for Psychic weapons in proportions as are the ships and some Facilities, so if you shut down Psychic they will be unable to receive their Psychic Components, Weapons and Facilities for there units, ships and Bases.
~
Same applies with any Components, Weapon and Facilities for Races on the other techs you may have shut down:

Psychic
Religious
Temporal
Stellar Manipulation
and Warp tech"
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Note: Amonkrie has NO racial traits “Race Opt 1 Num Advanced Traits := 0” but they will be unable to research Stellar Manipulation if they get the opportunity. The way you have it currently set.
~
~
In regards to Master Computers that may be explained in my previous few Posts on that topic.

[JLS]

Originally posted by JLS:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Aloofi:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by JLS:
Thats it http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
you shut down Psychic....
~
No prob http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Do you mean that if I shut down psychic the Psychic races will always go for that pricey Master Computer?
I checked the Amonkrie and they were doing fine. The only bad thing I saw was a Shipyard ship with a Battlecruiser hull instead of the far cheaper Medium Transport hull.
Is there anything I can do to fix that without messing the current game?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">In regards to Master Computers that may be explained in my previous few Posts on that topic.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Aloofi,
View PvKs post who posted a much clearer answer. At the same time I was posting.

[ March 05, 2003, 18:01: Message edited by: JLS ]

[JLS]

Originally posted by PvK:
Master Computers are generally not worth the high expense except maybe with very large ships

PvK<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Agreed,
However, what is to be done with the older designs. That want Computer Facilities in there Research Files? As it currantly set up.

PS: I did not mean to stir a hornets nest/
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ March 06, 2003, 00:05: Message edited by: JLS ]

[Aloofi]

Thanks for the answers.
About the Master Computer, what if I lower the price for it to, let's say, 1000 minerals instead of 4000?
Of course, the ships will still have a big combat penalty.....

[PvK]

Re: Master Computer use by the AI in 1.84

I should probably make a patch to try to address this, but it won't be easy, as I don't see a solution that doesn't have undesirable side-effects. That is, either all AI will be at a significant disadvantage (the current situation), or all Psychic empires will (if I make MC's cheap and lower their combat penalties). Best for newly-started games would probably be to split the computer tech area so that MC's are an option that AI's can avoid researching.

Unless anyone sees a better answer.

PvK

[JLS]

Originally posted by PvK:
Re: Master Computer use by the AI in 1.84

I should probably make a patch to try to address this, but it won't be easy, as I don't see a solution that doesn't have undesirable side-effects. That is, either all AI will be at a significant disadvantage (the current situation), or all Psychic empires will (if I make MC's cheap and lower their combat penalties). Best for newly-started games would probably be to split the computer tech area so that MC's are an option that AI's can avoid researching.

Unless anyone sees a better answer.

PvK<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Agreed:
If you revise the MC's as you say, and add a Tech level for just MC's tree to the bottom of Tech area that wouldn’t break or that adversely effect currant games, would it? (except Human Players that did not get computers before the update)
The AI probably would just retro fit to there intended designs soon enough if within retro fit rules?

[ March 06, 2003, 04:55: Message edited by: JLS ]

[PsychoTechFreak]

Originally posted by PvK:
Unless someone knows of a way to increase resistance to subverters (more/stronger vehicle control components?).

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The only way I see is either to lower the range percentages of the subverters or to strengthen the defense values (lower the to-hit-chances). It is not comparable with damaging weapons.

A bit off topic (I mean out of this specific question):
Medium Transporters with SY components. I have not yet found an AI race using this cheap solution, at least they don't use it in the later states of a game 60-100 years.
My question to PvK, was it even intended? If so, I think some AI ship designs could be improved by this, if not, I guess the cargo capabilities of SY components will be removed soon (3.00 Foundations).

[Fyron]

Originally posted by PsychoTechFreak:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by PvK:
Unless someone knows of a way to increase resistance to subverters (more/stronger vehicle control components?).

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The only way I see is either to lower the range percentages of the subverters or to strengthen the defense values (lower the to-hit-chances). It is not comparable with damaging weapons.

A bit off topic (I mean out of this specific question):
Medium Transporters with SY components. I have not yet found an AI race using this cheap solution, at least they don't use it in the later states of a game 60-100 years.
My question to PvK, was it even intended? If so, I think some AI ship designs could be improved by this, if not, I guess the cargo capabilities of SY components will be removed soon (3.00 Foundations).</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It is safe to say that it was intended. Otherwise, PvK would never have added the Cargo ability to SY components. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

SYs on Medium Transports allows you to do remote mining earlier, which is actually useful in Proportions (unlike the standard game).

[PsychoTechFreak]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
It is safe to say that it was intended. Otherwise, PvK would never have added the Cargo ability to SY components. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You are right, that is an obvious sign http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
In this case, I am going to observe some of the earlier AI ship designs to probably increase AI profitabilities.

[PvK]

The cargo ability allowing SYS on transport hulls is intentional. There are some other components that also benefit from that (supply storage, for example). This creates an interesting design choice, in addition to introducing SYS before cruiser-sized warships. That is, players have a choice between less capable (slower, bad combat ability) support ships at reduced cost, or expensive Versions with the same speed and ability levels as warships (minus the tonnage for the support components).

Unfortunately, the AI seems to have no ability to use SYS to any advantage, even if they can be made to build them.

...

As for JLS's questions about effects of the proposed computers change on existing games... it could be made so the AI would phase out the MC's. Human players wanting them would then need to research the new tech area to get them. It's not a very elegant solution, but it seems better to me than the alternatives I can think of at the moment.

PTF's suggestion about reducing subverter accuracy is another way to possibly help.

Perhaps there should be a set of optional patches which players can choose from to get the changes they want to deal with it. Yeech. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

PvK

[PsychoTechFreak]

Originally posted by PvK:
Perhaps there should be a set of optional patches which players can choose from to get the changes they want to deal with it. Yeech. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Noooo !

EDIT: I do not even think subverters need to get more disadvantages. They are very late in proportions tech tree, they just can be fired once per combat and there is still the disadvantage of a cascade effect. MCs have been changed more to a not wanted component for the important human ship designs (accuracy malus, bad defense, expensive), other than for a small base with not enough space in it I have not used MCs so far because of too many malusses. And I do not even think about using them to compete against subverters, there are better defense capabilities (long range weapons, faster ships etc.).

[ March 06, 2003, 10:39: Message edited by: PsychoTechFreak ]

[Aloofi]

I would support that idea of getting rid of the Psychic tech.......

[Aloofi]

Also, yesterday I researched the EMC III and the EMC I-b, but when I clicked on the upgrade button in the design screen my EMC II went to the EMC I-b instead of the EMC III. I suppose this is a bug or something, cause the EMC III is far better than the EMC I-b.
Is it there any use for the EMC I-b other than the fact that they only take 5kt?

[oleg]

Originally posted by Aloofi:
Also, yesterday I researched the EMC III and the EMC I-b, but when I clicked on the upgrade button in the design screen my EMC II went to the EMC I-b instead of the EMC III. I suppose this is a bug or something, cause the EMC III is far better than the EMC I-b.
Is it there any use for the EMC I-b other than the fact that they only take 5kt?<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Are you playing the latest Version of Proportions ? I though PvK get rid of this glitch. Anyway, I think it happens with ECM III only, once you get to ECM IV, it should upgrade normally (I think)

[Aloofi]

Originally posted by oleg:
Are you playing the latest Version of Proportions ? I though PvK get rid of this glitch. Anyway, I think it happens with ECM III only, once you get to ECM IV, it should upgrade normally (I think)<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yeah, I'm playing 2.53 with the 1.84 patch.
I'll get to EMC IV in couple turns, so I'll just not upgrade untill I get it. I have 5 combat designs to upgrade and there is not way I'm doing it by hand... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif .
You know, i'm one of those nutcase gamers that always keep the components in a design in order, like Bridge-Crew-LifeSupport-ShieldDepleter-MainGuns-PDCs-Sensors-Shields-Supply-Engines-Armor, so I would have to take the whole design apart to put the EMC III were sensors are suppose to be.... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

By the way, one of the most wonderful things of Proportions is how small hulls remain usefull way after they become obsolete in the unmodded game. Its almost impossible for my little Empire to afford more than one of those Dreadnaughts! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
I used to play with 2 designs at most in the unmodded game because pound by pound a Dreadnaught was more cost efficient that any smaller ship, something I find completely unrealistic in a military vessel.

[JLS]

Originally posted by PvK:
Unfortunately, the AI seems to have no ability to use SYS to any advantage, even if they can be made to build them.
PvK<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Agreed on the AI’s use of the SYS, remember PvK we spent weeks Last year, trying to get the AI to build on them other then hanging out at the home world, we came so close, just to find the AI also would build Colony Ships away from a habituated planet then sending the ship off to colonize with no POP http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif
Originally posted by PvK:

Perhaps there should be a set of optional patches which players can choose from to get the changes they want to deal with it. Yeech. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif
PvK<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">In regards to separate “patches” what would that do to Multiplayer?

[JLS]

Originally posted by PsychoTechFreak:
A bit off topic (I mean out of this specific question):
Medium Transporters with SY components. I have not yet found an AI race using this cheap solution, at least they don't use it in the later states of a game 60-100 years.
My question to PvK, was it even intended? If so, I think some AI ship designs could be improved by this, if not, I guess the cargo capabilities of SY components will be removed soon (3.00 Foundations).<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">PsychoTechFreak,
If you would check out the Abbidon and Cue Cappa from Proportions races, you will notice I put Cargo Ability on their Mine Layers, Satellite & Drone launchers as well as other Support Ships. Allowing there use In ST, MT and Large Transports. AI uses them very well http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ March 06, 2003, 15:09: Message edited by: JLS ]

[JLS]

Originally posted by PsychoTechFreak:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by PvK:
Perhaps there should be a set of optional patches which players can choose from to get the changes they want to deal with it. Yeech. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Noooo !

EDIT: I do not even think subverters need to get more disadvantages. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I am with you here, PsychoTechFreak.

I also like the way PvK has the subverters fine tuned, as is now.

[JLS]

For any one interested, I wrote this post Last year in regards to Space Yard Ships (SYS) in relation to some neat creative/inventive abuse’s.

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

NAV : posted May 20, 2002 01:17
Private
Member # 2879

Originally posted by PvK:
A group that has been playing Proportions multi-player LAN games on weekends has suggested removing the ability to put shipyards on medium (or larger) transport hulls, because it with the ~30% maintenance reduction, it makes a really powerful and economical mine/satellite layer in Proportions.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">~ Regarding Space Yards on cheap transports, in itself is fine, even though the AI does not make good/same use as Humans do.

But us crafty human players put a sat or mine Launching bay on it and bring it to our warp point, in 2 turns we build enough mines to stop any Incursion probe, in 3 more turns we have enough built and launched to probably stop the AIs entire Incursion. 5 more turns-we have enough mines from that Mine Fabricator built and launched, to stop the AIs Attack State sending it Back to infrastructure State to rebuild and try again.

Also goes on to say

http://www.shrapnelgames.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=005496;p=3

[ March 06, 2003, 16:10: Message edited by: JLS ]

[PvK]

Originally posted by JLS:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">...
Agreed on the AI’s use of the SYS, remember PvK we spent weeks Last year, trying to get the AI to build on them other then hanging out at the home world, we came so close, just to find the AI also would build Colony Ships away from a habituated planet then sending the ship off to colonize with no POP http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yep. That would actually work out ok, IF the AI were better at using population transports, but there's no way for us to help that. So, better for the AI to just not build them.

...
[QUOTE]
Perhaps there should be a set of optional patches which players can choose from to get the changes they want to deal with it. Yeech. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif
PvK<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">In regards to separate “patches” what would that do to Multiplayer?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It would be up to players to decide which patches they wanted to use, if any. No perfect solution. A few semi-solutions with different side effects. Choose some or none.

PvK

[ March 06, 2003, 21:24: Message edited by: PvK ]

[PvK]

Regarding the ECM upgrade choice, I had reasons for the way it behaves, but I don't remember the specifics well enough and can't look it up at the moment. The (b)(c) etc variations are not just smaller but also cheaper. At the earlier levels they are mainly good for smaller ships/units and such, but the later ones can be quite tempting. You always get a better bonus with the full Version, but it begins to get quite expensive, for not that much difference.

Originally posted by Aloofi:
...
By the way, one of the most wonderful things of Proportions is how small hulls remain usefull way after they become obsolete in the unmodded game. Its almost impossible for my little Empire to afford more than one of those Dreadnaughts! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
I used to play with 2 designs at most in the unmodded game because pound by pound a Dreadnaught was more cost efficient that any smaller ship, something I find completely unrealistic in a military vessel.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Thanks Aloofi. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

PvK

[Cornelius Scarecrow]

I've read this entire thread and I can't locate this tidbit of info anywhere:

It appears that, I can't upgrade my colony to a minor city?

So...
Could someone clarify the "city type" upgrade path?

Thanks to you. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

- Cornelius Scarecrow

[PsychoTechFreak]

You can take a look into facility.txt under the folder "data". At the beginning of this file you find the families listed. It is only possible to upgrade an old Version of a facility with a newer Version of the same family:

Example: Build a minor city and (later on if you have researched metropolis or megalopolis) upgrade it to a better Version.

Facility Family:
A unique identifier for all facilities of the same family.
1 - Mineral Mine
2 - Organics Farm
6 - Intel Centers
7 - Distribution Centers
11 - Rads extraction
41 - Massive Planetary Shield Generators
51 - Solar Generator
52 - Crystal restructuring plant
53 - Energy Transmission Lens
54 - Cultural Centers
59 - Solar Power Plant
61 - City through Megalopolis
62 - Arcology
70 - Cities including Space Ports and Resupply Depots
160 - Settlement/Community (Rock)
161 - Settlement/Community (Ice)
162 - Settlement/Community (Gas)
170 - Agrarian Settlement through Ecosystem
171 - Agrarian Cultural Center
202 - Organics Generation
341 - Planetary Shield Generators (non-massive)
342 - Phased Planetary Shield Generators (non-massive)

[Aloofi]

How do you guys feel about an orbital fighter?
Several pages down PvK talked about doing something like this with a 10 Kt hull, so I got inspired to do a little test. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
I made a 10 Kt fighter, no tech requierment, with 2 orbital engines with only Combat Movement, with Cockpit, Life Support and small depleted Uranium changed to No tech.
Basicly, its a fighter that can only have 2 small DUC, but the small size makes it kind of valuable, since you can have in 120 of them in a Carrier that can only hold 80 of the small fighters.
I feel like it is somewhat unbalancing.
Do you think this extra unit is necesary?
I did it having in mind that a civilization that builds Frigates surely have to know how to build little tiny fighters....right?

[PsychoTechFreak]

Aloofi,
Are you talking about something similar to this:

AI Campaign~ Incorporates-> TACTICAL FIGHTER MOD 12-26-2002 by John Sullivan. Fighters now move in Tactical combat only. On the Strategic map, when launched over a planet or any sector, they remain on combat patrol for that sector until recovered by a Carrier or your planet. This makes for some interesting strategies and designs.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Or would it be completely different?

[ March 10, 2003, 17:34: Message edited by: PsychoTechFreak ]

[Aloofi]

Originally posted by PsychoTechFreak:
Aloofi,
Are you talking about something similar to this:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
AI Campaign~ Incorporates-> TACTICAL FIGHTER MOD 12-26-2002 by John Sullivan. Fighters now move in Tactical combat only. On the Strategic map, when launched over a planet or any sector, they remain on combat patrol for that sector until recovered by a Carrier or your planet. This makes for some interesting strategies and designs.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Or would it be completely different?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No no, mine its just an extra fighter hull.
I have the 3 regular fighters in Proportions that move normally and then this tiny fighter that only moves in Tactical Combat.

The Orbital Fighter is just like the Infantry Troop, a unit that can be built from the very begining without researching any tech.

.

[JLS]

Originally posted by Aloofi:
How do you guys feel about an orbital fighter?
Several pages down PvK talked about doing something like this <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Aloofi, I wanted to read PvKs Post...
This may be of help to me in my Tactical Fighter MOD. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

But with a global search (orbital fighter) in the forom, it had no PvK hits? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

If you could lasso (quote) this post to bring it to the top, I would appreciate this!

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

[ March 10, 2003, 19:15: Message edited by: JLS ]

[Aloofi]

Originally posted by JLS:
Aloofi, I wanted to read PvKs Post...
This may be of help to me in my Tactical Fighter MOD. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

But with a global search (orbital fighter) in the forom, it had no PvK hits? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

If you could lasso (quote) this post to bring it to the top, I would appreciate this!

Thanks! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I couldn't find it. I know is in this thread. I remember he said that he might try to experiment with a 10Kt fighter with only Tactical Combat movement to make it avaliable from the start. I don't think he gave any other technical details.

[JLS]

Originally posted by Aloofi:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by JLS:
Aloofi, I wanted to read PvKs Post...
This may be of help to me in my Tactical Fighter MOD. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

But with a global search (orbital fighter) in the forom, it had no PvK hits? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

If you could lasso (quote) this post to bring it to the top, I would appreciate this!

Thanks! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I couldn't find it. I know is in this thread.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Thanks Aloofi for your help, I also checked the thread here and could not find those references; either. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

[ March 11, 2003, 18:18: Message edited by: JLS ]

[PvK]

I dunno what thread it was in, but you can search cross threads for my Posts, and probably find it.

In short, I said that for the next major Version, I would probably re-work fighters, and make the first ones start out without terribly high combat modifiers or abilities, and unable to move out of the sector they launch in. I also mean to tweak their combat abilities in several ways, with the first Versions limited in several ways. Then players would have to do signifigant research to develop better combat abilities, and specialize in research for anti-ship fighters, anti-fighter fighters, long-range movement, etc. That would all be a big change, so the whole system would be replaced, rather than it being an evolution of the current system.

PvK

[JLS]

That sounds like the 6+ Carrier, long range 3 wave fighter attack vs. AI Planet; Another way for the human to beat the AI grip I had; I Emailed you this PvK a while ago; along with some preliminary fighter design specs. For tactical fighter movement in AIC.
Don’t you recall?
Why, you like the Idea?
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
Or is there an Issue here?
I hope not, it has been a long day, and I am tired… Between work and AIC.

[JLS]

I looked for your reference here on thread again, PvK, I could not find it.

But I did find the complements you gave me here on thread, back in February and a few more, that I never seen before.

Actually, if there is an Issue, lets work out, and/or work on this Tactical fighter mod together, this way benefiting all that play the game.

Can you start a Tactical fighter thread, to kick start it, or shall I ?

[ March 12, 2003, 01:45: Message edited by: JLS ]

[oleg]

Originally posted by JLS:
I looked for your reference here on thread again, PvK, I could not find it.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It may be another example of threads/Posts disapper on this forum. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif I too remmember that discusion about mini-fighters.

[PsychoTechFreak]

Originally posted by oleg:
I too remmember that discusion about mini-fighters.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You don't think of the 1 or 5kT spacesuit-1man fighters, do you? I guess I had a brief discussion about something like this in an older proportions thread. I have investigated a test with 20-40,000 units in space which was utterly slowing down the combat.

http://www.shrapnelgames.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=007969;p=5

or

http://www.shrapnelgames.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=007969;p=4#000 053

[ March 12, 2003, 12:36: Message edited by: PsychoTechFreak ]

[Aloofi]

Originally posted by PsychoTechFreak:
You don't think of the 1 or 5kT spacesuit-1man fighters, do you? I guess I had a brief discussion about something like this in an older proportions thread. I have investigated a test with 20-40,000 units in space which was utterly slowing down the combat.

[<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The problem with the Orbital Assault Infantry is that they cannot enter the atmosphera of a planet, so they end up being just like fighters, and if you use them as Space Marines to board other ships then you are not simulating the hull breaking equipment.
I guess we gonna have to wait for SE5 to have it right. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[JLS]

PVK:

All though, we could not find your Post, I am sure it is out there.
However it would be beneficial to all, certainly less controversial, if you bring the original post to the front, PvK. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
Global [Search on these reference are not showing your post]
~~~
Guys.
PvK, has not mentioned the motive or intent was behind this post yet, it may just be to help make positive changes and additions for TACTICAL FIGHTER MOD. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

AIC TACTICAL FIGHTER MOD. Basically, just moves in Combat movement Phase; And has the natural Anti-Ship, anti-fighter, anti-planet, fighter abilities that one would expect from a se4 Fighter, with nothing overly fancy?

My intentions for this Mod as with all AIC; was to help the AI be, on a level Playing Field with a human player. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

All AI Fighter designs, are 100 % JLS. All added AIC Fighter or revised components, are 100 % JLS.
Is this not true PvK?
~~~~~~

AIC TACTICAL FIGHTER MOD: Does not do what now, half what you just posted!
There are a couple good ideas in this post PvK.
~~~
My TFD, does not have from your post PvK.


“Then players would have to do signifigant research to develop better combat abilities”
“and specialize in research for anti-ship fighters”
specialize in research for, anti-fighter fighters,
“long-range movement”
(“etc.”) Edit: Covers allot PvK Now I really would, like to see your post. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">All are good ambitious Ideas.

[Aloofi]

JLS, why don't you merge your Tacticl Fighter Mod with PvK's Proportions?

[JLS]

Originally posted by Aloofi:
JLS, why don't you merge your Tacticl Fighter Mod with PvK's Proportions?<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That would be an Honor, if PvK would do this.

With Pete’s experience, and our assistance; this could be Awesome. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[PvK]

JLS,

yes I remember we discussed tactical fighters some time ago, and that it would help remove an advantage humans have against the AI (since the AI isn't programmed to move fighters around a system).

I think the Proportions 2.x fighters offer a reasonable balance the way they are set now, at least for human players. In the interest of keeping the 2.x series relatively consistent for upgrading existing games-in-progress, I wouldn't want to rework the entire system in 2.x. It might be an improvement to 2.x to add a new class of tactical fighters, with some sort of minor advantage (probably simply cost and maybe reduced research time - I don't think they should be more effective), mainly because this would add an option, and one the AI could use and get something back for not being able to use the system fighters.

I don't mind if you want to use my reworking of fighters in your AIC mod - the only obstacle is you'll need to wait for me to work out what the details are. I'm pretty busy at present, and haven't even had time to study AIC yet - I assume it is a refinement of the AI balance mod to Proportions which you showed me some months ago?

PvK

[Aloofi]

Originally posted by PvK:

In the interest of keeping the 2.x series relatively consistent for upgrading existing games-in-progress
PvK<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">PvK, you can't keep holding back because of existing games. People that wants to keep playing an old game just need to not upgrade and that's all.
I would really like to see a reworked fighter model for the sake of realism, cause there is no way a fighter could keep flying around for an entire month.
Also, fighters should be at least twice as fast as the fastest ship in tactical mode. The way it is a Frigate can outrun a fighter in combat.... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

I did a test with fighters that moves with speed 10 in tactical combat, and the AI didn't do the bombing runs as well as a human player can, flying 5 to target, fire, and fly back, but the AI did fly to the target, fire, wait for next turn, then fire again, and then fly back out of range of enemy weapons.

[PvK]

Aloofi, I'm not delaying the release of new features because of existing games. I do think though that I'd rather not add much more to the 2.x series beyond fixes, and instead do 3.x or Foundations, and that will be a major project if I even have time for it.

The reason I don't want to just add small features one after another, is that I'm pretty happy with where 2.5.3 is, and if I'm going to devote a bunch more time to modding, I'd like to explore some of the larger ideas I have, rather than just add little things one at a time. The ideas overlap in some ways, so it would really be best to try to apply them all at once, instead of a bit at a time. Examples are the major changes I'm interested in making to the research system, mounts, racial tech areas, weapon abilities, and resource costs. I could make a fighter mod, but it would be more total work, because I'd need to make it work with the OLD system for all that stuff, and then go re-do much of it if I wanted to apply it to the new system. As I said, I'm happy enough with the way fighters work now.

Yes, fighters deploying for months sounds a bit much, but I don't think it's that impossible. A fighter squadron could pack supplies and even have some sort of "squadron space tent" or something so they could relax and interact while waiting for action. I think it's more likely than some of the other abilities some people have insisted should exist, like fast colonization of any planet from a single uber-device, computers that are better in all ways than the race that builds them, cultural development and scientific advancement based on industry and real estate on alien planets, or freeze-dried colonists.

As for increasing fighter speeds, first, I don't think you're correct that in general frigates are faster than fighters in Proportions. There are some tech levels where this may be true, but more research into fighters will let their combat speeds catch up and exceed most ships. A small fighter with quantum engines and mark III afterburners has combat speed 9, which is the same as a scout with quantum engines and gravitic drive III. Most ships are much slower than that, and those that are that fast are paying the price in small hull and heavy supply consumption.

I don't think I understand your premise that fighters should be twice the speed of any ship, anyway. Seems to me it's not unreasonable for a small ship specializing in speed to be able to keep up with a fighter, especially if it is using more than one technology to do it (gravitic + quantum), or the fighters have just been developed (ion engines and no afterburners).

PvK

[JLS]

I like Proportions a lot, and Peter (PvK), is a stand up guy...
With that said.

AI Campaign is a group of Mods that address some AI issues, not in Proportions but in Space Empires 4 in general, and we all know what these issues were and are.

PvK, you know from my Emails that SE4 with Proportions ; in my opinion and the opinion of many; is the best, SPACE Game on the market today.
That is why I wanted Proportion to be the Host for AIC.
This is going back to Last may 2002.

I look forward to the release of Proportions 3.0… I am sure it will be inspired.

And like you said you have not had time for distractions.
I too, when I was working on AIC, before its release.

As this relates to Fighters !!! Look we can’t even find your fighter post (now)!
I didn’t log in much then, so is it not possible it was missed by myself. You, really should bring that (unedited) post to the front PVK http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

In regards using aspects of your (“future fighter Ideas”). As you stated, I sent you the Email on the how the AI can get slaughtered with strategic fighter movement as well as sending you some of my fighter designs for AIC. Long before the release of AIC and its Fighter Tactical Mod.
There, is when you should have said you were at Issue with this.

I am surprised, you chose to Post this now. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif
~~~
When I sent you that Fighter Email with my designs, you replied the next day:

“Yea, I used the in Foundations’ Then, went on to say what you had for Foundations"""".
Well, I never seen Foundations, but its files must have been real Huge!!! Because it seems, that any time somebody had a good Idea for Proportions, you said “all ready had the in Foundations”.

Actually, this is the same thing you said to me when I presented to you; “that I felt the AI was also getting a bum deal with having to use Natural Merchants Trait to be more efficient in se4, that if you put Resupply and a Space Port on Settlements and Urban centers; as well as, sending you my Design called MAJOR PORT that included resupply and Space Port”
Your reply was the same thing (“I used this in Foundations”)
Sure enough, my (JLS) Ideas were out on your next 2.x upgrade.
With the Resupply and Space Port on some Urban centers and The MP renamed Combo Facilities (which was my major Port design).

Fool me once http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
If you already had it in Foundations!?!
Then, why is it not here in, Proportions (NOW) after all these years???
~~~~~

This will not happen with Tactical Fighter Mod.
It is my Ideas my LABOR, not yours.

True, it needs to be tweaked (allot http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ) as well as Proportions (some); but still, I put your name on EVERY file that had the (slightest) programming of yours, please verify this.

I (we) do expect the same curtsy .

John

[ March 13, 2003, 16:38: Message edited by: JLS ]

[dogscoff]

I (we) do expect the same curtsy
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">*Dogscoff curtsies courteously.

JLS, PvK has often told me that my suggestions overlap with foundations, but in these cases he has said that it overlaps with what he has planned for Foundations. he never claimed to have implemented it already in order to steal my glory.

[JLS]

Originally posted by dogscoff:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
I (we) do expect the same curtsy
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">*Dogscoff curtsies courteously.

JLS, PvK has often told me that my suggestions overlap with foundations, but in these cases he has said that it overlaps with what he has planned for Foundations. he never claimed to have implemented it already in order to steal my glory.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I agree.
I never said he was stealing my glory!

As you can see; PvK, POSTED and implied that I STOLE his fighter Idea.
This is not true!

PvK has put a flame to our bridge, not I.

[JLS]

Originally posted by PvK:
JLS,

yes I remember we discussed tactical fighters some time ago, and that it would help remove an advantage humans have against the AI (since the AI isn't programmed to move fighters around a system).
"
"
I assume it is a refinement of the AI balance mod to Proportions which you showed me some months ago?

PvK<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, PvK,

"Assume" Tactical Fighter Mod is related to the Email I sent you after Christmas 2002. As you just confirmed at the TOP of your post.

The AI balance segment that was started May 2002 and sent to you around Thank Giving 2002.

You, have never received the FULL Version of AIC.
(good thing; from what is being seen now)

[ March 13, 2003, 19:11: Message edited by: JLS ]

[JLS]

Originally posted by PvK:
JLS,
"
"
I don't mind if you want to use my reworking of fighters in your AIC mod - the only obstacle is you'll need to wait for me to work out what the details are. I'm pretty busy at present, and haven't even had time to study AIC yet - I assume it is a refinement of the AI balance mod to Proportions which you showed me some months ago?

PvK<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Since you want to POST who had time to get what done in Proportions !!!

PvK,
I made time: to help you with your released Proportions; when the AI was just building Culture Centers on all colonies, ages ago.

I Had time: To help the AI to be more efficient with (resupply and space dock on there Urban Centers).
Designing and Emailing you the Major port/Combo Facility and some Race specific Urban Centers.

I noticed that you have had one of my Specific Urban Center designs that I Emailed you back then. You put it in Proportions Facility Data file, and you Still can’t get it to work with the AI???
(refer to AI Campaigns; Agrarian Culture Center, that is how it was to be done)

Now, I see you have My Colony Ship with (CARGO no module) design that I may have sent you Last thanks giving, with AI Balance MOD in your Proportions Vehicle Dat file.
What, you could not get that to work with the AI either? as with my Agrarian design.(Again, refer to AIC; that is how it is to be done and see a (*) with Colonizable. Planets!)

I made time: Getting your AI to Build and Utilize your STAR LINER !!! By telling you to add cargo as one there needed abilities. Then, I had to send you the Design, because you could not understand what I was asking you to do…

I made time: To help you with a Psychic race: Abbidon. Only to see you mess up by copying the GAS Abbidon AI, I made, to the ROCK Nat. Merch. CueCappa????

There are more countless improvements to help your AI in Proportions that I have Suggested to you, and I was not to "busy at present"!
~
IS the Armor Plating REALLY your Idea; or is it someone else helping you with that to?
~
Heck, you couldn’t even help the Proportions Player {Mottlee} with his Proportions Prob. the other day. Posting him you could not figure it out ??? send it to Malfador;
As well as asking Oleg and My self for help… At that time as you can see I was trying to cover your back, and not make you look ridicules and stupid since it was only a SIMPLE design flaw on troop weapons choice for YOUR Amonkrie;
by solving just the Problem and not Posting on questions what it was, by players. Also inaudibly suggesting that the UFP and Gron AI, could also be problematic.

Well, I guess I said, what I had to say.

I can’t believe you would post that I used your (Reworking Fighters ), based on what? Your IMPLIED (long past) POST, PvK.
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif

[ March 14, 2003, 01:28: Message edited by: JLS ]

[JLS]

When somebody has the solution for the world not requiring Oil any longer.

Are you going to say that was your Idea, because you were going to use it in Foundations?

Or you posted it as Etc. at one time, long ago?

Come on PvK.
Either have it in Proportions or not!

[ March 13, 2003, 20:08: Message edited by: JLS ]

[Aloofi]

JLS, cool down man, the Last thing we want to see is fighting between modders.
Aren't mods suppose to be public?
Just take Proportions and merge it with the AIC and the Tactical fighter Mod.
If you don't, I will.
I definitively want an improved fighter combat model with Proportions.

[oleg]

Originally posted by Aloofi:
JLS, cool down man, the Last thing we want to see is fighting between modders.
Aren't mods suppose to be public?
Just take Proportions and merge it with the AIC and the Tactical fighter Mod.
If you don't, I will.
I definitively want an improved fighter combat model with Proportions.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hehe, Aic IS the merge of Proportions with some JLC ideas http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[oleg]

Originally posted by Aloofi:
I definitively want an improved fighter combat model with Proportions.[/QB]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hmmm, I actually like current Proportions' fighters. Very balanced weapon selection IMHO. "combat-only" fighters would be a nice addition but overall it looks about right for me.

[JLS]

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
Ok, im cooled down!

My intent with the AIC Mods was not to improve Proportions;

But was to show that the AI can compete, with a Human Players with the Modifications I released with AIC and only with Proportions as the Host!
~~~~
This thing is of me (“REWORKING his fighter idea”???) did get me inflamed.
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[JLS]

Originally posted by oleg:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Aloofi:
I definitively want an improved fighter combat model with Proportions.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hmmm, I actually like current Proportions' fighters. Very balanced weapon selection IMHO. "combat-only" fighters would be a nice addition but overall it looks about right for me.[/QB]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I agree, Oleg...

There is nothing wrong with current Proportion fighters; they are pretty much the same as, the base se4 fighters.
~
But the premise, is that the AI can not defend properly against a Long Range Carrier attack on his home world! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

This was my reason for the Tactical Fighter Mod …
Fighters now move in Tactical combat only. On the Strategic map, when launched over a planet or any sector, they remain on combat patrol for that sector until recovered by a Carrier or your planet.

"(When you attack a planet, you will now need to commit your fleet and Carriers where the AI will be able to defend itself ) ouch!"

I also tried to address some stacking issues with fighters versus Ships.
And I have been getting a lot of positive response for this effort. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ March 13, 2003, 21:17: Message edited by: JLS ]

[PsychoTechFreak]

Originally posted by JLS:
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
Ok, im cooled down!

My intent with the AIC Mods was not to improve Proportions;

But was to show that the AI can compete, with a Human Players with the Modifications I released with AIC and only with Proportions as the Host!
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">AI can compete with your modifications as well as with AI bonus turned on in a non-AIcampaign game. You provide the AI cheaper components/facilities and a helping AI research tree. Well, I know it is a lot of work to balance everything out and I certainly do not have the modding experience to see everything about it, but this is easy to see (e.g. AI Wormhole opener components just cost 1000 minerals etc.).

Don't get me wrong, I like your ideas and it is certainly better in order to finetune the given AI bonus instead of just putting the bonus level to low/med/high.
I just don't like the statement "competing AI" if the reality behind it is a bonus in fact.

[JLS]

Originally posted by PsychoTechFreak:
[QUOTE]
Don't get me wrong, I like your ideas and it is certainly better in order to finetune the given AI bonus instead of just putting the bonus level to low/med/high.
I just don't like the statement "competing AI" if the reality behind it is a bonus in fact.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Good Point, PsychoTechFreak.
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
I should have stated, with a leveler Playing field

[ March 13, 2003, 23:31: Message edited by: JLS ]

[Fyron]

In short, I said that for the next major Version, I would probably re-work fighters, and make the first ones start out without terribly high combat modifiers or abilities, and unable to move out of the sector they launch in.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This will not work properly. Fighters have a 1 strategic move minimum, even with no engines.

JLS:
As you can see; PvK, POSTED and implied that I STOLE his fighter Idea.
This is not true!

PvK has put a flame to our bridge, not I.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That is not what I see having happened. It looks to me like you seem to think that noone has ever thought of ideas you have thought of before. This is quite wrong. I know that I for one had thought of orbital fighters and such back in 2001, long before you ever started on AIC. This is not to say that I was the first person to think of this. Actually, I never made any Posts about it at the time, so I could not have been the source of the idea on Shrapnel. But, my point is that other people have thought of ideas like this before you. PvK may very well have thought of them before you, or you may have thought of them before him. Do not be so concerned over "mine mine mine". I am certain that there are lots of good ideas in people's personal mods that have not been posted anywhere on the net. If it is a good idea, chances are that a number of people will have thought of it concurrently. Isaac Newton and... umm... I forget the other guy's name... but anyways, both of them developed calculus simultaneously. Neither of them copied or stole from the other. It looks like the same kind of thing has happened here.

[ March 14, 2003, 00:05: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[JLS]

You make a valid Point, in regards to who thought of what first. Fryon. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
Thanks http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

~
Actually, Fighters in Tactical Fighter Mod, do not move 1 in strategic move minimum, and do not have a command that would allow a move! Basically, just sentry and Fleet! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ March 14, 2003, 01:36: Message edited by: JLS ]

[PvK]

JLS,

if I had time to respond to those kinds of Posts, I would still probably mostly ignore them, and do something else with my time. I certainly don't have time nor any interest to pore over your entire mod looking for "my code" and checking where you gave credit or not.

Also, much of the reason I have continued to add so much to Proportions, is that so far the modding community here had been very courteous and sharing of ideas. If I mention that something someone is discussing is something I've considered or worked on as well, it's not to say, "I thought of it before you - nyah nyah" - it's for interest's sake, to show I was of like-mind, and to offer discussion of ideas I'm interested in and would like to see realized in a fun mod.

However, I think part of your ... concern ... here is based on a misunderstanding on my part, and a misreading of my post by you. As I wrote in my Last post, I haven't had time to look at AIC yet, and I was asking you if I was right that it was a refinement of your "AI Balance" Version of Proportions - I thought that's what it probably was.

Regarding why there is so much I had planned or partly done for Foundations, and why it's not in Proportions, I've explained that before in several places. Basically, I like to release things that I think are relatively complete and work well together, and many of these other ideas involve a lot of careful work to get right by my standards, and may be interrelated. Also, I think I've mostly done what I set out to do in Proportions, so if I were to invest a lot more time in modding, I'd want to do something besides just tweak things one at a time. I'd probably want to make several major changes at once, and that's not something I want to start by posting little bits at a time, which would have various unintended side-effects.

Anyway, I'm sorry to see you apparently upset.

PvK

[Fyron]

Actually, Fighters in Tactical Fighter Mod, do not move 1 in strategic move minimum, and do not have a command that would allow a move! Basically, just sentry and Fleet! <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'll have to see how you accomplished that. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Hmm... more engines per move than they can get move points... beautiful.

[ March 14, 2003, 03:39: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[Aloofi]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
I'll have to see how you accomplished that. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Hmm... more engines per move than they can get move points... beautiful.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I think its just changing movement per engine to zero......