AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent [Archive] - Page 6

QBrigid

January 24th, 2004, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by PsychoTechFreak:
[QB] <blockquote>quote:<hr /> 100 mines in a sector is the default with AIC as it is in se4, a larger setting is possible.
However the AI has a daunting task constructing and placing 100 mines per field, can you imagine the AI needing to double that effort [[Wink]]

Yes the Human Player can load Mine Sweeper Components in total on Medium Transports, do you recommend this be restricted? No restrictions to the number of components, IMO. If you think a component is overpowered, just change it to a bigger size or more expensive.
Devnull has got 500 mines per sector; it is always a matter of balancing minesweeping ability and size of minefields. I do not use it often, it is just a kind of Last resort sometimes in the early game.

<hr /></blockquote>I don't know PTF. It seems like a whole lot of work building several minefeilds up to 500 to match the other players.
At 100 mines and at Space Empires 4 minesweeping ability of FIVE, will give the same result. Without all that work and micromanagement. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

JLS, I would keep minefilds at the traditional 100 setting (IMHO)

I also like the AIC se4 traditional mines because they work against Human Players like Space Empires and they are cheep to buy in AIC and the mines work against all the enemy components on the ship not just a few or one. Against the AI, minefields will work early and buy enough time to prepare defenses, just like when we play against other human players http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

But if I start next to violent AIC ai race or a good AIC human player I know mines is only a delay and against some human players, se4 mines is a short delay at best http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

If you think a component is overpowered, just change it to a bigger size or more expensive. PTF, will bigger organic or any se4 armor protect you from armor skiping weapons?

If Temporal or Cryslonite with early armor skiping weapons and they are full of unrestricted armor turn on you we are dead. Sure shields will help me but they will have shields and a whole lot of armor = they shoot I die - I shoot I bounce off all the armor they can fit and at 10kt that would be an awful lot http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif

[ January 24, 2004, 15:26: Message edited by: QBrigid ]

QBrigid

January 24th, 2004, 03:52 PM

Originally posted by JLS:
Thank you for the presented issues, the best way to handle Restrictions would be a one by one basis.

Ram Ship Cobalt Warheads are not restricted in AIC and you also have the ability that is restricted in se4 lifted so in AIC you may load them in total on Transports, for a neat Horatio Nelson fire ship.

Organic Armour is at 5 max, this was all discussed many months ago about restricting armor. Moreover, I am also partial to lifting the armor restriction as well. However, other players were adament about this issue as it applies to haveing restrictions on armor.

The AI is not overly effected even by its current designs by any changes with armor restrictions; so sure we have total freedom here.
However, this may yield advantages to other race types. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
Many felt that the Organics have the armor avantage at 5, plus combine this with other PvK v4.11 armors. Then the advantage is followed by the Crysteline...

The removal of the Armor restrictions will only play into the Temporals and Cryseline favor; races with early armor skiping weapons and further distence Psychic and other race advantages http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

In jest "I have tons of armor on my ships and your investment is worthless to my weapons" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif
However their claims may be just nitpicking?

Remote Mining should be modest in nature.
However, what would you recommend for possible per turn ship/base gross robo-minning net numbers with a 100% planet value?

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif 100 minefeilds = less work in a less important se4 area.

Minesweepers on transport = I agree with PTF we should restrict this.

The removal of armor = (Enhencements that se4 v1.84 gold upgrade offers) KEEP THEM (it offers balance potential)

Cobalt Warheads = GLV, I like the way AIC has this with no restrictions and I like that you can put them on transports.

Remote mining totals = What ever, as long as it is balanced http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
Do you want to see a few hundred or a few thousand added to the net minning totals? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

[ January 24, 2004, 15:29: Message edited by: QBrigid ]

QBrigid

January 24th, 2004, 04:05 PM

I would like to see AIC reduceing the massive Enterprise hull plating to only one per ship. This is more realistic and give the organic race 6 armors for more of an edge as they should get.

PS: My claims are not just nitpicking http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ January 24, 2004, 15:17: Message edited by: QBrigid ]

QBrigid

January 24th, 2004, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by JLS:

You have an interesting concept here. The main problem as it is now, is that many concepts may not work with the AI.

For example Anti-Engine Mines.

The AI would be crippled not destroyed and stuck at that location (no more engines), yet costing large amounts of support resources and the AI is none the wiser http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Further example: In se4 the AI calls its designs to be built by :
Planet Per Item (PPI) and Must Have At Least� Please see reference.

In this example the AI has 5 Dreadnoughts even worse 2 Colony ships as well; disabled by anti-engine mines and unable to fulfill it missions. However the AI sees this and sure it wants them repaired, but it can not get it to return to a Repair Yard. However when the AI Construction File looks at the [Must Have At Least numbers] it has the 5 Dreadnoughts and 2 Colony ships and will not fulfill any Must Have At Least orders because the ships exist.

Please remember, this AI is paying resources for the 5 Dreadnoughts and in stock se4 where only the Best and/or Largest ships is built; this may halt a majority of that Ship Types Construction.
It will certainly slow or even Halt Colony Ship Production�

The AI Ship with disabled engines is a sad sight to see http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif
A designer must consider the PPI also when designing there AI race , however, not to the point where it will break the bank in the late mid to end game
(A planet may have many slots in se4, however many also only have one slot for that AI Minning Facility to support those large Capital Ships) http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

= = = = = = = = =
Reference

se4 Default_AI_Construction_Vehicles

Entry X Must Have At Least:
Must have this many of this type in existance, or being built.
If not, then build more.
This comes before Planet Per Item.

AI State := Infrastructure
Num Queue Entries := 39
Entry 1 Type := Defense Base
Entry 1 Planet Per Item := 100
Entry 1 Must Have At Least := 0
Entry 2 Type := Attack Ship
Entry 2 Planet Per Item := 20
Entry 2 Must Have At Least := 2
Entry 3 Type := Colonizer
Entry 3 Planet Per Item := 80
Entry 3 Must Have At Least := 1
JLS is this why you removed Engine Damage intel from the intel and AIC Psychic Intel projects only for the AI Players and not Human Players.

How about other damage that effects AI ship production?

[ January 24, 2004, 15:22: Message edited by: QBrigid ]

JLS

January 25th, 2004, 05:41 PM

Originally posted by QBrigid:
JLS is this why you removed Engine Damage intel from the intel and AIC Psychic Intel projects only for the AI Players and not Human Players.

Yes. This is no biggie that the an AI have or not have Ship Engine damage Intel, I just felt it was best for the AIC - AI Players (ONLY) not to ping each other.

- - -
How about other damage that effects AI ship production? Sure there is a lot of in-game towards AI ship productions.

The obvious is Combat and a lucky Intel Planet Space Yard or BSY hit.

But a few discrete and possibly unnoticed situations would be for example.

Aggressive warp points that may disable the AI and not destroy the Ships.
Same applies to a Black Hole center and/or other system ship damaging anomalies.
(I would recomend the ship be totally destroyed or lightly damage) In this way the AI Ship may return for repair or be replaced when it is destroyed http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Systems with a Gravitational pull of (1) ONE; effects any AI ship that is in the pull, when it is out of fuel it moves one away and then the pull brings it back one; for ever stuck in this cycle. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

AI ships with a lot of fuel (or unlimited supply) when also in a gravitational pull as above, however with a pull of greater then half its normal movement may also be in the anomaly for a very long time before it escapes.(minor in nature)

When the AI Ship is in play but disabled and unable to repair, the AI Vehical Construction for its item MHAL replacement value; will be reduced in total overall productivity possibly even halted.

[ January 25, 2004, 18:50: Message edited by: JLS ]

JLS

January 25th, 2004, 09:03 PM

Originally posted by QBrigid:
Remote mining totals = What ever, as long as it is balanced http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
Do you want to see a few hundred or a few thousand added to the net minning totals? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif I definitely want an increase due to the value it will have with the FQM maps.

However, first it is important that we decide: Do we want Remote Mining for a Supplement or a Primary source of resources?

What effect do we want remote mining to have with the non-FQM maps?

[ January 25, 2004, 19:06: Message edited by: JLS ]

Paul1980au

January 25th, 2004, 09:38 PM

Keep it as a supplement but increase the values a bit to make it more important overall. Maps with resource rich areas in the centre of the game map makes a quick rush and constant fights over such areas to dominate the game.
Like to see MM expand the resource aspect of the game dunno how yet ?
viagra deposits to speed up planetary population growth they could be mined from black holes perhaps ?

Grand Lord Vito

January 26th, 2004, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by Paul1980au:
Keep it as a supplement but increase the values a bit to make it more important overall. Maps with resource rich areas in the centre of the game map makes a quick rush and constant fights over such areas to dominate the game.
Like to see MM expand the resource aspect of the game dunno how yet ?
viagra deposits to speed up planetary population growth they could be mined from black holes perhaps ? I agree with Paul keep robo-mines as a supplement.

Grand Lord Vito

January 26th, 2004, 01:34 PM

Originally posted by PsychoTechFreak:
Remote mining is good where it is IMO and AIC is designed for a more manageable ship count, raising the mining abilities will upset this and dig into LAN games. You don't play finite resources, do you? PTF you know that is mostly what I play http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

If there are infinate ways to make resources, how FINITE will our finite games be http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

JLS

January 26th, 2004, 08:31 PM

Originally posted by QBrigid:

If Temporal or Cryslonite with early armor skiping weapons and they are full of unrestricted armor turn on you we are dead. Sure shields will help me but they will have shields and a whole lot of armor = they shoot I die - I shoot I bounce off all the armor they can fit and at 10kt that would be an awful lot http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif You have a strong case QB, what do others think?

[ January 26, 2004, 21:42: Message edited by: JLS ]

Grand Lord Vito

January 27th, 2004, 02:01 AM

JLS - "What effect do we want remote mining to have with the non-FQM maps?"

Originally posted by Paul1980au:
Maps with resource rich areas in the centre of the game map makes a quick rush and constant fights over such areas to dominate the game.
Again I agree with Paul. In the non-FQM maps the classic se4 Asteroid system is like GOLD when playing the AIC centurion and traditional maps for there rich resource mining and Create Planet options.

With the Importance of the Classic se4 Asteroid belt, we have had countless AIC battles in the past versus greedy Human LAN opponents. Against the AIC ai Players just holding and fighting to get to it or even supremacy of that system before an unfriendly AIC ai Player COLONIZES my Classic se4 Asteroid System.

I do not want to see this lost with any new changes.

Grand Lord Vito

January 27th, 2004, 02:19 AM

Originally posted by QBrigid:
will bigger organic or any se4 armor protect you from armor skiping weapons?

If Temporal or Cryslonite with early armor skiping weapons and they are full of unrestricted armor turn on you we are dead. Sure shields will help me but they will have shields and a whole lot of armor = they shoot I die - I shoot I bounce off all the armor they can fit and at 10kt that would be an awful lot http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif [/QB]NO http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

I use this stratagy against Human Players. As a Temporal race I wait until they get into trouble with the AIC AI or another Human player that packs sheild depleteing weapons, knowing they switch to mainly armor, and then I pounce on them. When defensless against me, they fall very fast.

As a Temporal I really get a kick out of the false sense of security a player, particularly organic races get with se4 armor http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

QB is right.
Now, with the se4 v184 gold. It is not that easy to get away with this, if I cant pack my ships with unlimited Armor. I can see where this can get controversial http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ January 26, 2004, 12:45: Message edited by: Grand Lord Vito ]

Grand Lord Vito

January 27th, 2004, 02:35 AM

Originally posted by QBrigid:
I would like to see AIC reduceing the massive Enterprise hull plating to only one per ship. This is more realistic and give the organic race 6 armors for more of an edge as they should get.

PS: My claims are not just nitpicking http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif NO, I think JLS said claims are like knitting. All in a twine http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ January 26, 2004, 12:38: Message edited by: Grand Lord Vito ]

JLS

January 27th, 2004, 01:46 PM

Thanks for the help guys, AIC v4.20 should be out shortly.

I will have the details as soon as more play testing is completed.

Thanks again.

oleg

January 27th, 2004, 04:15 PM

Something odd is with ruins on planets in 4.1
Before you could't tell if it is "real" ruins or empty one. Now, only "real" ruina are listed under "special"in planet sorting and have that ruin symbol on the planet picture. "empty ruins" still display description but that' it. I think the mishap happened during the integration of FQM files.

JLS

January 27th, 2004, 05:12 PM

Thanks Oleg, I will look into it.

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

[ January 27, 2004, 15:13: Message edited by: JLS ]

Fyron

January 27th, 2004, 05:21 PM

You need to add dummy unique techs that do nothing and have the "empty" ruins be Ancient Unique, and give out those dummy tech areas. This makes the ruins icon show up, so it does not look like a dummy ruin. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I should probably remove those from the FQM Standard Version... I think I had done so at one point but added them back without thinking about it in one of the newer Versions. :-\

[ January 27, 2004, 15:21: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

JLS

January 27th, 2004, 05:36 PM

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

Fyron, can you lend a hand, QBrigid has a balance question with se4 Armor in general and the advantage that may be afforded to armor skipping races. Perhaps you could help us with the mechanics.

Thanks JLS

[ January 27, 2004, 15:49: Message edited by: JLS ]

PsychoTechFreak

January 27th, 2004, 09:25 PM

Originally posted by JLS:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by QBrigid:

If Temporal or Cryslonite with early armor skiping weapons and they are full of unrestricted armor turn on you we are dead. Sure shields will help me but they will have shields and a whole lot of armor = they shoot I die - I shoot I bounce off all the armor they can fit and at 10kt that would be an awful lot http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif You have a strong case QB, what do others think? <hr /></blockquote>I tend to agree.
(Heavy) Armor Piercing Weapons additions to the non-racial techs, probably?

Side question: The plain armor still has got the armor ability removed, right (like in PvKs original good idea) ?

Fyron

January 27th, 2004, 09:44 PM

Leaky type armor originally appeared in P&N mod 2-3 years ago. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

No component with the Armor ability will protect you from weapons with the armor-skipping ability. Leaky armors treat armor-skipping weapons as normal weapons. Components with the Armor ability are only damaged by armor skipping weapons once there are no other components left intact on the ship that do not have the armor ability.

However, the abilities "shields from damage" and "emissive armor" are not triggered from shots by weapons with armor-skipping damage, even if they are on components that do not have the Armor ability.

If this does not answer the question, please restate it. Multiple people making multiple Posts in a row is difficult to wade through. :-\

Grand Lord Vito

January 27th, 2004, 11:11 PM

JLS we have discussed the unbalance issue of the subverters for the Psychics. You were against the removal then and to-hit did help balance some but if you still plan to be serious about MP* Multiplayers.
You have to face the subverter balance issue soon

Grand Lord Vito

January 27th, 2004, 11:24 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

Leaky armors treat armor-skipping weapons as normal weapons.
Components with the Armor ability are only damaged by armor skipping weapons once there are no other components left intact on the ship that do not have the armor ability.

However, the abilities "shields from damage" and "emissive armor" are not triggered from shots by weapons with armor-skipping damage, even if they are on components that do not have the Armor ability.
Great post Fyron, thanks http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
I will need time to digest this, it is hard to fully understand.

Can you suggest a thread on leaky armor or even better add more here.

[ January 27, 2004, 21:26: Message edited by: Grand Lord Vito ]

Fyron

January 27th, 2004, 11:51 PM

What more would you like? Leaky armor is just a component without the Armor ability that has a high hit point per kiloton ratio, as well as preferably having more hit points per component than most other "internals" do. It works because the calculations that determine which component gets damaged by a shot are based on the hit points of components, and those with more hit points are more likely to be hit first, though not guaranteed.

Grand Lord Vito

January 28th, 2004, 12:35 AM

It is the second paragraph in your original post that I dont fully understand.

Also if there is emissive armor as an ability then the armor is no longer leaky?

Fyron

January 28th, 2004, 02:21 AM

When a weapon hits a ship, it will first face the shield layer. If there are no shields, or no shield points, the damage goes to the components of the ship. If there are any components with Armor ability, they will be hit first. But, if the weapon was one with armor-skipping damage, such as Shard Cannons, then the damage will completely bypass the Armor layer and damage "internals," where internals are any components that do not have the Armor ability. Only the Armor ability makes a component act like "armor." If a ship has "leaky armor" components, they are not actually "armor" because they do not have the Armor ability. They are treated exactly like other internals. The reason that we use the term "leaky armor" is because having some beefed up components (lots of hit points) without the Armor ability makes them act similar to armor, except that some shots will not hit them but hit other internals instead. So instead of complete absorption by the Armor, you have partial absorption by the leaky armor. Armor-skipping damage has one role, to bypass the Armor layer, or in other words, those components with the Armor ability. However, testing has shown a few other side effects. The abilities of Shields From Damage and Emissive Armor do not get triggered by weapon shots with the armor-skipping damage type. Both of these abilities will function when any component gets hit, even if that component does not have that ability. This is why stock Armor and Emissive Armor work. Any shot from a regular weapon that hits any armor component will be emissed by so many damage points. The same occurs with Crystalline Armor, which has the shields from damage ability. If you assign either of these abilities to an internal component, then that ability will be triggered when any component on the ship is damaged, whether it is internal or armor is irrelevant. But, their effects do not get triggered from weapon damage of the armor-skipping type. So, if you mod in an internal component that has the Shields From Damage ability (such as leaky shields as in some mods), no shields will be added from the damage occured by an armor-skipping weapon (such as Shard Cannons).

Loser

January 28th, 2004, 02:53 AM

Nice explanation.

Now break up that monster, you grammar-savage.

Paul1980au

January 28th, 2004, 03:06 AM

Well perhaps another armour type could be added to solve the problem ie a technology that gives a chemical coating to internal components that would be targetted by the problem providing them some additional protection from weapons or just selected components that could be coated for protection !

Fyron

January 28th, 2004, 03:15 AM

Originally posted by Loser:
Nice explanation.

Now break up that monster, you grammar-savage. Maybe I should make it one single sentence. With no caps. And no punctuation.

*Note that this was a joke directed at Loser for his suggestion that I am a grammar monster for having that post be one single paragraph. It was posted in a light-hearted manner, taking the grammar monster joke to the extreme, and was not in relation at all to anyone else, not about anyone else, or anything of that nature. Any such interpretation is reading information into the joke that simply does not exist. Loser and I have developed an "internet friendship," which breeds (limited) familiarity, and is what allowed him to feel fine making such a joke towards me in the first place, and allowed me to make this joke towards him. It was a joke. Not an insult, not harrassment, nothing of the sort. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Thank you.*

[ January 30, 2004, 15:59: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

oleg

January 28th, 2004, 03:34 AM

I don't see much problem with armour and armour piercing weapons in AIC. Shard cannons are rather weak and costly to research. Time-shifters are even weaker and are wasteless against ships with internal armour - better use normal, hard hitting weapons !

As to racial armours, CA needs phased shields to work against PPB and many AIs use them. OA is usefull in small battles, but when AI send its Main Fleet, the targeted ships seldom live long enough to benefit from OA. The 1.84 "fix" that removed OA pre-generation really done OA in http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

JLS

January 29th, 2004, 03:27 PM

Originally posted by Grand Lord Vito:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Loser:
Nice explanation.

Now break up that monster, you grammar-savage. Maybe I should make it one single sentence. With no caps. And no punctuation. <hr /></blockquote>thank you fyron your views are explained fine
it was just some of the comments i did not understand <hr /></blockquote>GLV please do not be disturbed by any possible comment or sarcasms http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif
Some players do not realize that the internet is multi-national. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif
Your origins are not my business, however your English Grammar is more then enough to convey your expressions http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

JLS

January 29th, 2004, 03:38 PM

The Moderators may want to caution any player that makes fun of another�s grammar or spelling.
Especially, any person that attacks another�s perceived intelligence by the use of the known grammar that a person may convey.

Not all will master the English word and why should they, am I so naive to think English is the only language in this world.

If we are to remain strong as a community for its total diversity, we must embrace all that have not proven to have consistent destructive tendencies of intimidation or harassments. Otherwise, we will continue to lose so many that may want to be and have contributions.

[ January 29, 2004, 14:11: Message edited by: JLS ]

JLS

January 29th, 2004, 04:24 PM

Imperator Fyron, I have reported your writings to the Shrapnel Sys-Ops.

Pointing out discrimination, harassment and intimidation should not be tolerated by any organization and individuals as prominent as Shrapnel Games, Malfador Machinations.

John Sullivan

[ January 29, 2004, 20:16: Message edited by: JLS ]

geoschmo

January 29th, 2004, 04:34 PM

Let's all play nice guys.

JLS

January 29th, 2004, 04:44 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Let's all play nice guys. Geo, is it your contention as a Shrapnel representative. Players are to be discriminated against, and continually harassed and/or intimidated consistently by one individual and then when the victimized Players loses his/or her composer that you say:

("PLAY NICE")

I see...

- - -
JLS

[ January 29, 2004, 17:52: Message edited by: JLS ]

geoschmo

January 29th, 2004, 04:56 PM

Originally posted by JLS:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by geoschmo:
Let's all play nice guys. Geo, is it your contention as a Shrapnel representative. Players are to be discriminated against, and continually harassed and/or intimidated consistently by one individual and then when the victimized Players loses his/or her composer that you say:

("PLAY NICE")

I see...

JLS <hr /></blockquote>JLS, "play nice" was not directed at you, but at everyone in general. I have contacted Loser and Fyron privately. I inteneded it leave it at that but since you want to call me out about it...

I agree with you that their comments were a bit sarcastic. I have aked them to be more careful in the future. However, I do believe you are being a bit overly sensitive. And you are blowing things just a little bit out of proprtion here. This is confirmed by your reaction to me in your Last post.

So, calm down JLS. Don't be so ready to take offense at every comment made. You got to let some stuff slide. Getting all worked up about every little slight, intentional or unintentional, is not healthy.

Geoschmo

JLS

January 29th, 2004, 05:26 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by JLS:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by geoschmo:
Let's all play nice guys. Geo, is it your contention as a Shrapnel representative. Players are to be discriminated against, and continually harassed and/or intimidated consistently by one individual and then when the victimized Players loses his/or her composer that you say:

("PLAY NICE")

I see...

JLS <hr /></blockquote>JLS, "play nice" was not directed at you, but at everyone in general. I have contacted Loser and Fyron privately. I inteneded it leave it at that but since you want to call me out about it...

I agree with you that their comments were a bit sarcastic. I have aked them to be more careful in the future. However, I do believe you are being a bit overly sensitive. And you are blowing things just a little bit out of proprtion here. This is confirmed by your reaction to me in your Last post.

So, calm down JLS. Don't be so ready to take offense at every comment made. You got to let some stuff slide. Getting all worked up about every little slight, intentional or unintentional, is not healthy.

Geoschmo <hr /></blockquote>It is not I, that have been offended it has been a fellow Forum Member that again has fallen Victim of Fyrons intimidation, harassment or the discrimination or his implied statement of a fellow members grasp to intellectually understand.

There are hundreds of Posts with Fyron intimidations, harassments and discrimination recorded here on this Forum. Also recorded ,are scores of Shrapnel representatives requesting him to stop and yet he continues.

After receiving GLVs Email that he has had enough of Fyron and this Forum and will never return.
I feel that Fyron has gone to far by discriminating against GLV and publicly mocking this man integrity and origins. Although could be misunderstood by GLV as mocking of his ORIGINS, it still no less appalls me that Fyron has the knowledge he may continue on another and then another Forum Member.

I believe Imperator Fyron should be expelled from this Forum and that his handle be deleted and not be permitted to be used by any other,

[ January 29, 2004, 16:01: Message edited by: JLS ]

geoschmo

January 29th, 2004, 05:43 PM

JLS, You should restrain yourself now. You are in danger of going over the edge yourself. Yes, Fyron can at times be beligerant and abrasive. But he has done nothing to warrant being kicked off the forum. By asking for such a drastic measure you are pointing out the fact that you have a personal bias against him.

I am not interested in continuing this discussion in public. I have emailed you and asked for some explanation of why you have taken such offense to his comments. You have thus far not bothered to acknowledge my email.

If you wish to continue this discussion do so by email. I will not permit this to become a "Bash Fyron" thread.

Geoschmo

JLS

January 29th, 2004, 05:48 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
"I will not permit this to become a "Bash Fyron" thread.

Geoschmo [/qb]I am calm or is it the content of the message.

I have stated what GLV has Stated to me and I have posted.
I have asked for moderated assistence in this matter and that is enough for me. No more will be said.

Agreed, let us return to AIC topics.

Thank you Geo.

JLS

[ January 29, 2004, 16:10: Message edited by: JLS ]

oleg

January 29th, 2004, 06:29 PM

I suggest to lower the cost of Starliner life support module from 1K to 500 organics. As it is now, Straliner capable to carry 2 people cost TWICE as staliner with basic life support that carries 1 people (I add all 3 resources together).

For most races organics are precious and used up eesily by colony ships and advanced buildings. I build "true" starliners only when play Organic race. In all other cases it is much more cost effective to use basic life support. It may look as a minor issue but it sort of kill the idea of starliners with specialized life support for millions of people and converts them into generic big transports http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Reduced cost will not unbalanced the game, you still won't be able to maintain more than 20 starliners for a long time (unless Organic of course, but that fits the race character anyway http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif )

[ January 29, 2004, 16:32: Message edited by: oleg ]

JLS

January 29th, 2004, 06:38 PM

Excellent suggestion Oleg, thanks.

[ January 30, 2004, 12:58: Message edited by: JLS ]

Spoo

January 29th, 2004, 07:39 PM

Umm... when was GLV insulted? I'd hate for someone to be driven away from the community over a misunderstanding.

As I understand it:

1) Fyron makes a statement about how armor works.
2) GLV asks for a clarification.
3) Fyron gives a lengthy one (with no paragraph breaks)
4) Loser criticizes the lack of paragraphs
5) Fyron responds that it would be worse with caps or punctuation
6) GLV is offended http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

JLS

January 29th, 2004, 07:42 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
I agree with you that their comments were a bit sarcastic. I have aked them to be more careful in the future. Spoo the moderaters have asked for the Fyron subject to be closed.
We would like to continue AIC related Topics only on this thread.

Thanks, JLS.

EDIT:
Geo, you must have received my Email reply by now.

[ January 29, 2004, 20:09: Message edited by: JLS ]

geoschmo

January 29th, 2004, 07:43 PM

Spoo, if you need to know, email me and I'll explain it to you as I understand it. But I'd rather not dredge it all back up now in the thread. The situation is resolved now and I'd like to keep it that way.

Geoschmo

Spoo

January 29th, 2004, 11:11 PM

Sorry, I suppose it's none of my business anyway.

Grand Lord Vito

January 30th, 2004, 02:59 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Loser:
Nice explanation.

Now break up that monster, you grammar-savage. Maybe I should make it one single sentence. With no caps. And no punctuation. <hr /></blockquote>thank you fyron your views are explained fine
it was just some of the comments i did not understand

JLS

January 30th, 2004, 04:15 PM

Originally posted by oleg:
I suggest to lower the cost of Starliner
With the AIC 4.0 changes, perhaps the time has come to balance this allowing OS* (off) to be a little more competitive with OS* on.

- - -

Originally posted by PsychoTechFreak:
I tend to agree.
(Heavy) Armor Piercing Weapons additions to the non-racial techs, probably?

QB,
PTF tends to agree with your Armor vs. Temporal and Crystalline post. What are your thoughts QB about adding more Armor Skipping Weapons for all the Races.

GLV, would this not water down your advantages when playing a Temporal or Crystalline race; What are your thoughts GLV?

- - -
Originally posted by oleg:
I don't see much problem with armour and armour piercing weapons in AIC. Shard cannons are rather weak and costly to research. Time-shifters are even weaker and are wasteless against ships with internal armour - better use normal, hard hitting weapons !
GLV even though you play Temporal; if I am not mistaken you appreciated the AIC to-hit penalties on Armor shipping weapons as a means to slow their development= (advantage) but not cancel the advantages in the long run. In addition any Armor Skipping race will have to invest heavily in Combat Sensors and perhaps at some point a adversary may even Counter this with hi levels of ECM before attacking a Armor Skipping race.
GLV, could you elaborate more on this please.

- - -
Originally posted by oleg:
As to racial armours, CA needs phased shields to work against PPB and many AIs use them. OA is usefull in small battles, but when AI send its Main Fleet, the targeted ships seldom live long enough to benefit from OA. The 1.84 "fix" that removed OA pre-generation really done OA in
QB, I know you had many thoughts about Organic Armor as well as Armor in general. Perhaps you may elaborate on this topic?
You also touched on the benefits of the 184 se4 gold patch, could you expand on this some more?

- - -
Originally posted by PsychoTechFreak:
Side question: The plain armor still has got the armor ability removed, right (like in PvKs original good idea) ? How do AIC players feel about this. Is there any friendly advice from AIC players on Leaky Armor to be introduce as a replacement or addition for PvKs armor style?

- - - - - -

Qbrigid I would like to thank you for all your contributions in AIC Psychic intel. Is there any ideas you may have to expand this addition to se4 AIC.

- - -

GLV, you have Emailed much on improvements for the AIC MP* Multiplayer options is there more positive opinions you could add here.

= = = = =

If no fresh new ideas, I will package were we are at.

[ January 30, 2004, 19:40: Message edited by: JLS ]

oleg

January 30th, 2004, 04:33 PM

Originally posted by JLS:
,...Is there any friendly advice from AIC players on Leaky Armor to be introduce as a replacement or addition for PvKs armor style?

??? PvK' plain armor is exactly the Leaky Armor !
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

It is just how you call it http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

JLS

January 30th, 2004, 04:46 PM

Could you expand on your previous Post a bit Oleg, Fyron indicates leaky armor is in part:

Leaky armor is just a component without the Armor ability that has a high hit point per kiloton ratio, as well as preferably having more hit points per component than most other "internals" do. It works because the calculations that determine which component gets damaged by a shot are based on the hit points of components, and those with more hit points are more likely to be hit first, though not guaranteed.
Not intending to dishonorably pick Fyrons post apart. The first sentence eludes to Leaky Armor not having ARMOR ABILITY. Is that sentence misunderstood and is this what PvK proposed?

[ January 30, 2004, 14:52: Message edited by: JLS ]

JLS

January 30th, 2004, 05:07 PM

If I may interject a possible goal for AIC to continue with.

PvK Proportions Armor Plates.

When this is penetrated by the enemies Fire then it attacks the internal components. The Component with the highest structure (value) may be attacked by this fire then.
In example Sensors, Engines, Ship Security, Self-Destruct etc. Prioritized by the design (structure values).

I ask the Players, would they also like to see the Armor (if I understand it correctly) that Fyron posted to be the AIC basic Armor Structure Component.

QB started a post; "that would restrict AIC Players to ONE (1) PvK armor Plate and ONE (1) PvK Ablative Armor", and I think some players may want to see Fyrons post implemented to enhance what QB posted. As Fyron defined and Paul pointed out; would be the AIC Structure Armor to beef up internal ships corridors etc.

I would like more feedback on this if possible.
Perhaps ONE (1) Armor Plate for Ships and Two(2) Armor Plates for Bases?

= = = =

Fyron, that was an outstanding and very helpful Armor post and I know you were thanked. In addition, I would also like to thank you.

[ January 30, 2004, 15:33: Message edited by: JLS ]

oleg

January 30th, 2004, 05:46 PM

Originally posted by JLS:
Could you expand on your previous Post a bit Oleg, Fyron indicates leaky armor is in part:

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Leaky armor is just a component without the Armor ability that has a high hit point per kiloton ratio, as well as preferably having more hit points per component than most other "internals" do. It works because the calculations that determine which component gets damaged by a shot are based on the hit points of components, and those with more hit points are more likely to be hit first, though not guaranteed.
Not intending to dishonorably pick Fyrons post apart. The first sentence eludes to Leaky Armor not having ARMOR ABILITY. Is that sentence misunderstood and is this what PvK proposed? <hr /></blockquote>Fyron' explanation is exactly what Proportions/AIC "plain" armor is - no armor ability and a lot of hit points http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif _Ablative_ armor in this mod is a SEIV standard armor

JLS

January 30th, 2004, 06:32 PM

Originally posted by oleg:
exactly what Proportions/AIC "plain" armor is - no armor ability and a lot of hit points http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif _Ablative_ armor in this mod is a SEIV standard armor Fyrons, definition of NO (Armor Ability) may make perfect sense for a Structure Armor to the basic Armor (non-Scaled or non-special) for AIC and with PvK Plate Armor as posted by QB, defined by Fyron and pointed out by Paul, should do the trick. Unless I am missunderstanding what the Players posted, are suggesting?

However, the Proportion (basic) Armor; DOES have Armor Abilitiy or have Emissive Ability.
AS such, may not be as Fyron defined or Players suggested.

= = = = = = =
Reference

Proportions
V2.5.3.1

Name := Armored Structure I
Description := Standard metallic armor used to protect a ship from physical damage.
Number of Abilities := 2
Ability 1 Type := Planet - Shield Generation
Ability 1 Descr :=
Ability 1 Val 1 := 0
Ability 1 Val 2 := 0
ility 2 Type := Emissive Armor
Ability 2 Descr := Deflects 1 damage per hit.
Ability 2 Val 1 := 1
Ability 2 Val 2 := 0
Weapon Type := None

Name := Ablative Armor I
Description := A thick covering of energy absorbant material designed to be completely destroyed before allowing attacks to penetrate.
Number of Abilities := 1
lity 1 Type := Armor
Ability 1 Descr := Is damaged before any other components on a ship.
Ability 1 Val 1 := 0
Ability 1 Val 2 := 0
Weapon Type := None

[ January 30, 2004, 21:43: Message edited by: JLS ]

JLS

January 30th, 2004, 06:52 PM

=BUMP=

Originally posted by JLS:
If I may interject a possible goal for AIC to continue with.

PvK Proportions Armor Plates.

When this is penetrated by the enemies Fire then it attacks the internal components. The Component with the highest structure (value) may be attacked by this fire then.
In example Sensors, Engines, Ship Security, Self-Destruct etc. Prioritized by the design (structure values).

I ask the Players, would they also like to see the Armor (if I understand it correctly) that Fyron posted to be the AIC basic Armor Structure Component.

QB started a post; "that would restrict AIC Players to ONE (1) PvK armor Plate and ONE (1) PvK Ablative Armor", and I think some players may want to see Fyrons post implemented to enhance what QB posted. As Fyron defined and Paul pointed out; would be the AIC Structure Armor to beef up internal ships corridors etc.

I would like more feedback on this if possible.
Perhaps ONE (1) Armor Plate for Ships and Two(2) Armor Plates for Bases?

= = = =

Fyron, that was an outstanding and very helpful Armor post and I know you were thanked. In addition, I would also like to thank you. I would like more feedback on this if possible.
-Perhaps ONE (1) Armor Plate for Ships and Two(2) Armor Plates for Bases?
-Do players think that the Increased Armor yield that a Base�s or Large Displacement Ship, satisfies; is enough as not to warrant an additional Armor Plate?
-Ablative Armor limitied to (1) However no space is used from within the ship http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
-How many ("Leaky" as defined by Fyron) AIC Structured Armor or should we have limits on this item?
-How about Limits that would allow a more generous share in OA versus other types that may restore what Oleg and QB have suggested was lost with the v184 se4 update?

[ January 30, 2004, 21:45: Message edited by: JLS ]

oleg

January 30th, 2004, 07:50 PM

well, then structural armor is a leaky armor http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
Emissive armor ability does not make it true armor and very lower values dont make much difference anyway. I really don't think armor nee any changes. Well, may be add more few more levels for more fun and remove emissive armor ability from units' armor - it does not do anything.

PsychoTechFreak

January 31st, 2004, 01:04 AM

I still don't get the point about limiting armor at all (I would remove the limits from my data files anyway). I mean, if the idea has been to weaken temporal/chrystalline ships because of their armor skipping weapons plus an unlimited armor defense, then I don't get why you want to limit the leaky armor now. Armor skipping weapons behave like normal weapons to leaky armor, because it has no armor ability and is handled like every other structure (like the internal structure in MOO2). So leaky armor is one of the best defenses against armor piercing weapons, if it is limited this would strengthen temporal/chrystalline too much. I do understand (but still I don't like) a limit to chrystalline armor and organic armor (if anyone uses two racial traits like an organic/temporal combo or somesuch), but a limit to the structural (non-armor ability) http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

[ January 30, 2004, 23:09: Message edited by: PsychoTechFreak ]

oleg

January 31st, 2004, 02:58 AM

I don't like the limit too, but for different reason - limit is set regardless of ship size. That means the dreadnaught is no stronger than a light cruiser. Completely idiotic, IMHO.

JLS

January 31st, 2004, 04:25 AM

Agreed Oleg, and some may say that exterior HULL Armor requiring such a great portion of interior space may seem odd as well.

In regards to the Plate Armors; it is and always will be scaled to the ships displacement. An AIC Dreadnoughts Armor Plate, is and always will be considerably stronger then a Battleship and more to that of a Cruiser, etc. The only test changes to AIC Hull Plating; will be for it to require much less interior Ships/Base Space occupied by its Armor http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif With this change, many more interior Ship/Base options will be now to our avail with the freed interior Space this change will yeild http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

As for Structural Armor (as per Fyron definition of "SJ Leaky Armor") Many Players and I believe is more of a true interior structural support then the AIC Structure Armor used today and when revised; this Armor will not have or need for any load limits http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Organic and Crystalline Armors. Agreed, it will take many more Emails and Posts to convince us of the desire for load Limits.

Ablative Armor (externals absorbent material) may be a limited to one, this will not occupy any interior Ship/Base Space.

Advanced Composite armor has not been determined at this time for all its Abilities, Values or Limit. However, (after a sufficient Tech investment) its intent will be towards the mid to late game and to offset other Racial Armors for the non-Racial Players.

As it is now, a new/revised AIC Armor Inventory is a theory that will be tested.

- - - -

I will send you guys the Beta after it is all put together. Along with the changes discussed and others not yet fully discussed. Plus an AI that will be turned up a few more notches in the Total Mid and Late game:
Ship, CV, Unit, BaseShip, Intel and Research Productions.

[ February 01, 2004, 16:00: Message edited by: JLS ]

Claymore 2002

February 3rd, 2004, 08:41 PM

Hi all,

I have just started using the AIC 4.11 and I like what I see.

However, I am having a problem with starliners.
When I am in the design interface, it tells me the design will have 2 or 3 movement.

Once I build a strliner in game, they all have movement of zero. If I select the a starliner, none of the movement icons become available.

Could some one share a basic design with me so I can figure out what I am doing wrong?

I have tried straight engines and also the gravitic drives. For instance:

Large Starliner:
basic bridge
basic life support X 3
basic crew quarters
Population life support Module
Gravitic drive MK II X 1
Efficeint Quantum Engine III X 1

Projected movement = 2

In game movement = 0

Also, I've noticed that some of the Versions of some components jump around and/or the text doesn't match the Icon.

Lastly,

What, exactly, does the Debarkation Depot do?

oleg

February 4th, 2004, 12:15 PM

Interesting. I thoght such design will give you same result in game and design window. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

Add one more "normal" engine, so standard movememnt will be at least 1. Gravitic drive gives you "bonus" movement and apparently it works only if your ship has normal movement >0.

BTw, AIC is not suited well for all-tech start, it was designed for low-tech start.

JLS

February 4th, 2004, 03:33 PM

Agreed, the use of (9) thru (15) �standard movement� was taken for granted and does not fully explain that this may be diminished by a ships hull configuration and or displacement.

Excellent point Claymore. We will look into rewording the Engines and with emphasis on Hull types to help refine this. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
- - -
Some Players enjoy starting the AIC game at a Medium Tech start, and some have played High Tech Starts about as much as they would in se4... However, as Oleg pointed out; AIC is initially being designed for emphasis with the default Tech Starts.
- - -
If Players find more items in need of a better explanation or to be repositioned please post or Email.
Actually, if you have a phrase that may enhance any descriptions please Post or Email http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif
= = = =
Without getting into the specifics of the non-se4 type population MASS of 1000=scaled, and the Positives or Negatives that it may entail with its global modifying data.

To move a 1000 MASS of population is represented by a Starliner and/or a high level cargo storage Transport hull from one planet to the next . This is seen as Very Tactical for some Players or just mundane to others.

The Debarkation depot (OS*) player option will allow (auto monthly Starliner pop Deleivery, if you will) and is intended to allow Colonized Planets to gain in Population on a per month basis without the need of Starliners for those who find Starliners mundane http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
- - -
Starliner Population Transports do not require extra se4 Life Support modules. The (SL Pop Life support module) will be more then sufficient not only for the population carried but for that ships crew as well http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ February 04, 2004, 14:33: Message edited by: JLS ]

Claymore 2002

February 4th, 2004, 04:10 PM

Thanks for the feedback.

I will try a new design.

I would say that I would never have figured out that the starliner pop module makes the basic life support unnecessary.

I would also suggest that there needs to be some clarification on the points raised in the readme about how the pop module and the crew quarters can be used to move cargo.

What is the capacity, etc.

JLS

February 4th, 2004, 04:47 PM

Regarding the Read.me. QB was interested in revising this for us, I will see where she is at and to clarify some key points for a concise and terse view http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

I would and will work on more AIC details. However, with work, my Wife wanting to play her new Rise of Nations game with me and my son wanting to paint Napoleonic miniatures and set up future scenarios with (ALL THOSE RULES http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

I am finding less time to do what I need or even to just sit-back with a beer and watch TV http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ February 04, 2004, 15:47: Message edited by: JLS ]

Claymore 2002

February 4th, 2004, 05:58 PM

Sorry, a few more questions and something for you to look at.

Why are starliners limited in movement? It seems like '2' is the best you can configure.

I tried removing the basic lifesupports, but I get the warning that this hull requires 3 life support units. If the Pop Module is supposed to fulfill this need, this needs to be changed.

Lastly,

If you look at the weapon plaform computer core. the IV takes 40 mineral and the V takes only 10 mineral. There are a number of incidents like this. I will start to keep a list to PM.

oleg

February 4th, 2004, 06:02 PM

Originally posted by Claymore 2002:
Sorry, a few more questions and something for you to look at.

Why are starliners limited in movement? It seems like '2' is the best you can configure.

I tried removing the basic lifesupports, but I get the warning that this hull requires 3 life support units. If the Pop Module is supposed to fulfill this need, this needs to be changed.

It is by design. The idea is to have slow and bulky transports for population - after all, you are shipping 1 million people with baggage, furniture, books, cars, etc. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

JLS

February 4th, 2004, 06:09 PM

Originally posted by Claymore 2002:

If you look at the weapon plaform computer core. the IV takes 40 mineral and the V takes only 10 mineral. There are a number of incidents like this. I will start to keep a list to PM. Outstanding, thank you very much. We can use all the help we can muster http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ February 04, 2004, 16:13: Message edited by: JLS ]

oleg

February 5th, 2004, 01:12 PM

Actually, I wonder why there is no difference between computer core I to IV ? Same size, same cost, same abilities http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif There MUST be something to have more advanced components !

JLS

February 10th, 2004, 03:35 PM

Shortly after the time I released the Last AIC update, the C: Drive was lost along with my notes and some AIC, Adamant and other Players tasks we were working on.

I am unsure at this time why the Level 2 and up Computer core is changed, either way it will be restored and with at least three more components that need tweaks. The AI mine vehicles were adjusted then tested and not reset for that release, need to be resolved. I will reword any new phrases the Players submit in the next release. Structural Armors will not have Limits and we will find a compromise for the new Resource Base mining values.

More input is encouraged please continue to post, PM and Email; I will resume works after this weekend.

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

[ February 10, 2004, 13:37: Message edited by: JLS ]

QBrigid

February 18th, 2004, 01:01 AM

When is the next update http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Are you going to cut down on some of the moons and Astroids?
The AI is building to many planets http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

Fyron

February 18th, 2004, 02:30 AM

If you play on a non-FQM map, you will not have so many asteroids and moons. If you select a FQM map such as Mid-Life No Ast Belt, most systems will have only 2 asteroid fields in them. You can create other No Ast Belt type quadrants simply by using this quadrant (or the sparse or dense one) as a template. Most quadrants only differ in the following lines:

<blockquote>code:<hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;"> Name := Mid-Life No Ast Belt
Description := Standard middle age section of the galaxy .
Min Dist Between Systems := 1
System Placement := Random
Max Warp Points per Sys := 5
Min Angle Between WP := 60
</pre><hr /></blockquote>JLS, why does this say 2.07/1.20 in QuadrantTypes.txt?
Features Fyron's Add-on Quadrant Mod-Version 2.07/1.20Did you use stuff from both FQM Deluxe and FQM Standard? They are nearly the same, except that FQM Deluxe has changes that make maps uncompatible with the stock game (changes to PlanetSize.txt, SectType.txt, and Settings.txt changes, as well as the system images in SystemTypes.txt). Unless you want to remove the necessity to get all of the system images (nebulae, black holes, etc.), there is not much reason to use the FQM Standard files.

JLS

February 19th, 2004, 04:08 PM

Fyron I do not fully recall why I stated (2.07/1.20 in QuadrantTypes.txt). Perhaps I used much of those FQM files as a base for FQMs port to AI Campaigns data files. In addition I believed I used some token data from v2.08 as well, this is good stuff and I/we are drooling for more http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Agreed Fyron, this is the way to go for those that do not want so many Planet options in the game.

QB when time permits, I will have a other Quad options available that will have less Asteroids and still maintain most of the FQMs flavor that we enjoy.

- - -

The next up date!

The next update will focus on the interface and the need to put loose ends together. AIC next major upgrade will be after the final se4 patch and all that this may entail.

[ February 19, 2004, 14:32: Message edited by: JLS ]

Fyron

February 24th, 2004, 03:48 AM

Grand Lord Vito

May 2nd, 2004, 10:05 PM

JLS the beta release for AIC 4.50 is great I played it all week end.
Some of the AI is a little agresive is this what you wanted? The plate armor for the out side hull is perfect and dosnt use very much internal space http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif MORE WEAPONS http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif . I like the Internal Structural Supports (leaky Armor) And with no armor load restrictions http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
The AI builds even more ships with even larger task forces (45+ ships in 3 Fleets with others ranging from 2 to 40 in the late game) Tere planet fighers may be a little to hard to crack should you tone this down?
They build more Colonies faster now it is getting very tough to keep at medium AI bonus http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
Are you going to implement the AI Spereworld SM ships still?
Keep up the good work.

Did you get my Email

JLS

May 3rd, 2004, 12:04 AM

Originally posted by Grand Lord Vito:

Tere planet fighers may be a little to hard to crack should you tone this down?

They build more Colonies faster now it is getting very tough to keep at medium AI bonus http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Are you going to implement the AI Spereworld SM ships still?
Thanks GLV, I will have more for you this coming weekend.

I will recheck the AI fighter totals; however, we still want the adversary to Commit all in the conquest of the HW.

Agreed, I have leaned into the Medium AI setting a tad, we should look into this. When at low or med AI Bonus we do want to keep the competitive results near v4.0

Yes in regards to Olegs and Geo's recomendation.
I scraped the AI Players Sphere world Construction ship. Primarily the AI Construction Ship will scour the universe to create the Huge World and not have any attentions to Colonize it, allowing another (Human) Player to reap from the builders efforts� Perhaps when I complete the Enterprise TV Series � AIC add-on to represent the Expanse Spheres http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ May 02, 2004, 23:30: Message edited by: JLS ]

Fyron

May 3rd, 2004, 01:47 AM

4.11 to 4.50? Why such a big jump in Version numbers?

Paul1980au

May 3rd, 2004, 02:26 AM

Maybe SE5 will lead to a Version 5 as the fist for the new game

JLS

May 3rd, 2004, 12:43 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
4.11 to 4.50? Why such a big jump in Version numbers? For the inquisitive mind http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Basically when a minor change or add-on in beta or even my own (lets see the result test) is performed.
I will post a letter for example 4.11 to 4.11abc etc and then log that change, when/if that little packet is together I then roll the digits to for example 4.111 or 4.12

When there are major changes or conceptual additions and that usually did not involve any systemic changes (did not void existing games), the Version number then may be reclassified with just the rolling of an new digit for example 4.20 etc.

When changes led to a systemic proportion (any installs will void save games), then I will consider this a new generation hybrid and will run with or from for example 4.xx to 5.00 (when released).

In other words, when every little change is made then that change is logged. If it is decided that the change was invalid then the whole line bar is voided and the working AIC copy is rolled back to the desired past Version.
In just a few examples: AIC 4.11 Armor was revised to represent the Exterior Hull Plating more accurately and Structural Armor alone has been revised and then tweaked numerous times ETC. the Alpha and/or Numeric Version characters do move along with every change http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Thursday when I Emailed some players the AIC beta so we will see where we are at, that Version went from 4.48a to 4.50 as to mark the first released beta towards the next Public AIC release http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
- - - - -

Originally posted by Paul1980au:
Maybe SE5 will lead to a Version 5 as the fist for the new game For review, when se4 was released (and prior to gold) the new Version patch�s /upgrades where NOT consecutively released. 1.03, 1.11,"", etc.

Then se4 Gold was released. With its major changes and conceptual additions to the programming (Possibly not enough in mm�s opinion to designate se5)

Then came se4 gold�s upgrades or patch�s with Version designations also not released to the public consecutively. "","",1.78,1.84,1.91

Moreover, please review se4 history text file and the notations are for all changes by a number and I am sure the se4 programmers have a more complicated a system then what is documented. This may just be a method to track every specific change internally.

= = =

However, your suggestion does sound like a viable Marketing idea for Space Empire =V= http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ May 03, 2004, 14:48: Message edited by: JLS ]

JLS

May 5th, 2004, 02:34 AM

Originally posted by JLS:

"~~~"

With Starliner Option OFF
(Defalted; otherwise, please re-enabled if desired)
Name := SO*
With *HP* above, this is a Standard Starting Option: Resulting in a more robust game that requires LESS Micro Management and logistics. Your game will be less dependent on Star Liners with this option.

This allows for a Civilizations advance towards organized Immigration doctrines. With this, Players are now able to build Debarkation Depots that can be tied together with your Empires Supply Hubs. Easily constructed, this will increase all Population migrations automatically and indiscriminately to all Colonized Planets in that System the Depot was constructed. The need and effort for Star Liners as Population transports are vastly diminished with this option enabled.
- - - -
Originally posted by oleg:

I still think this option is way too powerfull. You can easily outpace AI so I never play withthis automatic replicant centers. It removes any need for planet condition improvement, optimal expansion strategy planning, etc.

Better option would be faster and cheaper straliners tech for this option plus "gestation vats" with high value for population growth. You will get faster development but still retain Proportionesque feature of the mod.
Just my .2c - - -

Originally posted by JLS:

Your point is valid, Oleg. With the Starliners ON (OS* option disabled) for your AIC game play option, you will continue to have a desperate need for increased Starliner numbers continuously. Retaining the feel that the Star Liners PVK and myself co-developed for Proportion Mod many years ago, provide.

Your reduced SL Organics suggestion has been play tested months ago. Reducing the Organic Costs for Star Liner LS with AIC, in many Players opinion does diminish the Economics and logistic feel for the need of agricultural support and its advancement to sustain massive Imperial population growths and expantion.

= = =

With regard to(OS* option enabled)

Again you have a point as it may apply to the relative POP numbers EARLY in the game when comparing Population Totals against the AI. However, there are many more variables that are in play with Starliners OFF that is not to the Human Players best interests when competing against the AIC AI overall or as well http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ==
Reply by JLS

Oleg, this may be a compromise.
An additional StarLiner Hull with reduced costs triggered by a subtech for those that want a competitive balance in multiplayer versus the Players that choose OS* to the players that may not desire OS* options that will also be available in solitare play.
The next Version will have increased Reproduction benefits for the generic System Bio Hospitals with added compensatory numbers on Gestation Vats for the Organic Race Players Concerns. Also to mention that this new SL tech trigger as well as the Immigration Techs both will be cancelable from the new game Techs Allowed menu for multiplayer agreement concerns.

Would this satisfy most players? And what would be the desired resource costs for the optional Star liner?

[ May 05, 2004, 02:01: Message edited by: JLS ]

QBrigid

May 5th, 2004, 06:51 PM

Originally posted by oleg:

I still think this option is way too powerfull. You can easily outpace AI so I never play withthis automatic replicant centers. It removes any need for planet condition improvement, optimal expansion strategy planning, etc.
Oleg if a planet needs condtion improvement, does this stop you from sending Star Liners anyway? I still do and with AIC OS* option on, so will the Auto Starliners. In any case the improvment plant is needed to increase the reproduction http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

OS* = Auto Starliners is provided by AIC for people that do not want the troubles of optomal expantion projects that deal with the micro movements of 40 to 60 Starliners http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

I also play like you without the AIC OS* option and micro manage our population. But it is http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif that others have the option not having to when they play AI Campaign.

Better option would be faster and cheaper straliners tech for this option plus "gestation vats" with high value for population growth. JLS origionaly had higher Gestation Vat values with earlier Versions of AIC and as I recall you thought this should be reduced then. I also agree we now should go back to the old 2.xx GV Values.

[ May 05, 2004, 18:43: Message edited by: QBrigid ]

QBrigid

May 5th, 2004, 06:57 PM

Originally posted by JLS:

Oleg, this may be a compromise.
An additional StarLiner Hull with reduced costs triggered by a subtech for those that want a competitive balance in multiplayer versus the Players that choose OS* to the players that may not desire OS* options that will also be available in solitare play.
The next Version will have increased Reproduction benefits for the generic System Bio Hospitals with added compensatory numbers on Gestation Vats for the Organic Race Players Concerns. Also to mention that this new SL tech trigger as well as the Immigration Techs both will be cancelable from the new game Techs Allowed menu for multiplayer agreement concerns.

Would this satisfy most players? And what would be the desired resource costs for the optional Star liner? I like this, next time I play GLV and the guys I will have cheaper Starliners and when I go Solo I can play the game without the Cheaper Starliners so I keep the Econmics chalange.

As I posted earlier, I never like the reduction in Reproduction with the Bio Med Facility or the Gestation Vats.

[ May 05, 2004, 19:08: Message edited by: QBrigid ]

QBrigid

May 5th, 2004, 07:30 PM

Originally posted by oleg:
I suggest to lower the cost of Starliner
With the AIC 4.0 changes, perhaps the time has come to balance this allowing OS* (off) to be a little more competitive with OS* on.
Yes I also agree with Oleg. But as a optional hull so the economics are not lost to the Players that like that stuff.

Originally posted by PsychoTechFreak:
I tend to agree.
"(Heavy) Armor Piercing Weapons additions to the non-racial techs, probably?"

QB,
PTF tends to agree with your Armor vs. Temporal and Crystalline post. What are your thoughts QB about adding more Armor Skipping Weapons for all the Races.

GLV, would this not water down your advantages when playing a Temporal or Crystalline race; What are your thoughts GLV?
I think the armor skipping weapons are fine as they are. My concern is the fact that Temporals or Crystallites can stack the Armor to there benifit. When the needed help that se4 v1.84 upgrade can give in this area is ignored then this is a concearn to me.

Originally posted by oleg:
"I don't see much problem with armour and armour piercing weapons in AIC. Shard cannons are rather weak and costly to research. Time-shifters are even weaker and are wasteless against ships with internal armour - better use normal, hard hitting weapons !"

GLV even though you play Temporal; if I am not mistaken you appreciated the AIC to-hit penalties on Armor shipping weapons as a means to slow their development= (advantage) but not cancel the advantages in the long run. In addition any Armor Skipping race will have to invest heavily in Combat Sensors and perhaps at some point a adversary may even Counter this with hi levels of ECM before attacking a Armor Skipping race.
GLV, could you elaborate more on this please.
Oleg GLV, what recomondations do you guys have for the strength ot the racial armor skipping weapons strength?

Originally posted by oleg:
As to racial armours, CA needs phased shields to work against PPB and many AIs use them. OA is usefull in small battles, but when AI send its Main Fleet, the targeted ships seldom live long enough to benefit from OA. The 1.84 "fix" that removed OA pre-generation really done OA in

QB, I know you had many thoughts about Organic Armor as well as Armor in general. Perhaps you may elaborate on this topic?
You also touched on the benefits of the 184 se4 gold patch, could you expand on this some more?
Sorry I am not sure what Oleg is saying??? Organic armor seems to be very strong post 184

Originally posted by PsychoTechFreak:
Side question: The plain armor still has got the armor ability removed, right (like in PvKs original good idea) ?

How do AIC players feel about this. Is there any friendly advice from AIC players on Leaky Armor to be introduce as a replacement or addition for PvKs armor style?
Nope. I like the derection and Posts that you and Fyron discussed about SJ's leaky armor for UNLIMITIED internal support armor and the new AIC Exterior Hull Plating that would be LIMITED to the amount of HULLS a ship has http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Qbrigid I would like to thank you for all your contributions in AIC Psychic intel. Is there any ideas you may have to expand this addition to se4 AIC.
Thanks. No new ideas.

What are you going to do about total mine fields. PTF suggested 500/field. That would be to much are you going to keep them at 100?

What of the robo mining values. What some has suggested is (((way))) to high. You should keep them at the present values.

Do not foget the FQM Ancient Ruins thing Oleg mentioned. Are you going to reduce the Astroids in FQM?

The WP Computers. Do they really need so many levels?

[ May 05, 2004, 19:19: Message edited by: QBrigid ]

QBrigid

May 5th, 2004, 07:58 PM

Originally posted by JLS:

I scraped the AI Players Sphere world Construction ship. Primarily the AI Construction Ship will scour the universe to create the Huge World and not have any attentions to Colonize it, allowing another (Human) Player to reap from the builders efforts� Perhaps when I complete the Enterprise TV Series � AIC add-on to represent the Expanse Spheres http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Sad

I so looked forward to following Eees coattails and colonizing AI constructed Sphere worlds as I now enjoy the advantages of Eees warp openings and Astroid convertions http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

PvK

May 5th, 2004, 08:55 PM

Originally posted by QBrigid:
... <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by oleg:
As to racial armours, CA needs phased shields to work against PPB and many AIs use them. OA is usefull in small battles, but when AI send its Main Fleet, the targeted ships seldom live long enough to benefit from OA. The 1.84 "fix" that removed OA pre-generation really done OA in

QB, I know you had many thoughts about Organic Armor as well as Armor in general. Perhaps you may elaborate on this topic?
You also touched on the benefits of the 184 se4 gold patch, could you expand on this some more?
Sorry I am not sure what Oleg is saying??? Organic armor seems to be very strong post 184
... <hr /></blockquote>Pre-1.84, Organic Armor generated "healing" points every turn, even before it was damaged at all. So in the usual situation, where there are a few turns before a ship gets hit, the ship would accumulate a large amount of "pre-healing". Oftentimes, a ship with much Organic Armor on it would repair all of its destroyed armor, perhaps multiple times, in a single turn, unless all of it was destroyed in a single turn. So, pre-1.84, it could be pretty durn effective (and in a way that didn't make a heck of a lot of sense).

In the unmodded game, my feeling is that Organic Armor is still a very nice component, because it is very cheap, uses organics (several advantages from that), and has reasonable protection and the regeneration. Since shield-skipping and depleting abilities are relatively common and powerful, and armor-skipping less so, Organic Armor definitely has its uses.

I haven't studied AIC armor, but Proportions mod armor (which I gather is similar) makes ordinary armor (Armored Structure) also quite strong, and not much impaired by armor-skipping, though also not hit-first. Organic and Crystalline armor remain the best hit-first armors (each in their own ways), but not necessarily the best non-shield protection. From a Proportions standpoint, I'd say Organic Armor maintains a useful and unique application, but a smaller one, and that there would certainly be room to add enhancements of various sorts, which might be a well-deserved balance boost. On the other hand, since economics are much more important in Proportions and AIC, the cheapness and organics use of Organic Armor are quite a bit more important than they are in the unmodded game.

PvK

QBrigid

May 5th, 2004, 09:20 PM

Thanks PVK.

With the se4 1.84 Patch are the benifits of regeneration on Organic Armor removed from the stock se4 OA?

Fyron

May 5th, 2004, 10:10 PM

Originally posted by QBrigid:
Thanks PVK.

With the se4 1.84 Patch are the benifits of regeneration on Organic Armor removed from the stock se4 OA? No. Stock OA still regerates, but it doesnt happen until after some armor is destroyed. This makes the regeneration fairly useless, as it takes several turns to get pieces to regenerate, and ships rarely survive that long once combat has begun... sure, you might get one piece to regenerate, but that is nothing... Of course, I believe that all OA is healed after combat now, so in the unlikely event that your ships are damaged but survive, the armor is all repaired. This is all speaking of stock SE4 values, of course... If the armor was 1/10 the size and all, the regeneration would be a lot more useful. Huge ships can sometimes have enough armor survive to get some regeneration, but smaller ships can't rely on it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

JLS

May 6th, 2004, 02:33 PM

Originally posted by QBrigid:

I think the armor skipping weapons are fine as they are. My concern is the fact that Temporals or Crystallites can stack the Armor to there benifit. When the needed help that se4 v1.84 upgrade can give in this area is ignored then this is a concearn to me.
Your original post is an interesting one with players adding to your subject as it applies to Armor stacking and the less then effective means to combat Armor Skipping races when you are for example a Psychic Player.

PTF (PsychoTechFreak) mentioned concerns that the access allowed for a moder to utilize total component load options availed in v1.84 may be used too liberally at the current AIC Version. That having limitation on the way AIC Armor is currently available to the Players is just not fun. (Many Players and I agree to many aspects of PsychoTechFreak post)

Furthermore QB, you are incorperating the PTF Posts into your observation that armor skipping weapons are effective against armor and this is true; however, adding Armor load restriction is not how to defuse your dilemma. You will find in-game avenues to counter Armor Skipping weapons and you may have to look outside the Psychic tech tree for your resolution.

Originally posted by JLS:

How do AIC players feel about this. Is there any friendly advice from AIC players on Leaky Armor to be introduced as a replacement or addition for PvKs armor style?

Reply by QBrigid:
�Nope. I like the derection and Posts that you and Fyron discussed about SJ's leaky armor for UNLIMITIED internal support armor and the new AIC Exterior Hull Plating that would be LIMITED to the amount of HULLS a ship has �
If one was to say that the (scaled, Plate Armor) designed by PvK and introduced in Proportions is ABSOLUTELY THE BEST armor in the se4 pre Adamant genertation, would you believe this to be true? You must consider this when you design your Ships and bases, because it is the best and (PvKs Plate Armor) is the TUFFEST to penetrate in se4.

Originally posted by QBrigid:

What are you going to do about total mine fields. PTF suggested 500/field. That would be to much are you going to keep them at 100?

What of the robo mining values. What some has suggested is (((way))) to high. You should keep them at the present values.

Do not foget the FQM Ancient Ruins thing Oleg mentioned. Are you going to reduce the Astroids in FQM?

The WP Computers. Do they really need so many levels? WP Computer advancement can be best answered by referring to Fyrons earlier post on that subject. �The best value is chosen when UNITS engage in combat�. Yes many levels are important as the game progresses.
- - -

Other then to make the FQM port feasible and then applying the FQM recent Version updates when time allows. I will not alter Fyron FQM MOD. Fyron does have the feel on the FQM Players pulse, also to mention Fyrons desire and ability to perform with the FQM Players wishes in mind.
This may sound rude. If a game that generates less Asteroids is desired, then choose a map option that has less Asteroids generated.

---

In regards to increased Robo-Minning efficiency numbers. AIC will continue to enjoy the modest Economic complement that Mining operations may yield; However, AIC will not become a mining operatives game, outside the benefits already enjoyed by FQM�s asteroid mining and planet conVersion contributions to se4.

- - -

With respect to total Mines placed in a minefield. AIC will follow Tampa Bay Gamers advice that will limit all Players to 50 mines per sector field. With this direction AIC will be able to reduce the AI Players anti-mine abilities. Based on SJ's advice, the over all reduced effectiveness of the v4.11 Minesweeper Component will be applied for a 50/fld balance.

[ May 06, 2004, 16:41: Message edited by: JLS ]

Fyron

May 6th, 2004, 09:21 PM

Other then to make the FQM port feasible and then applying the FQM recent Version updates when time allows. I will not alter Fyron FQM MOD. Fyron does have the feel on the FQM Players pulse, also to mention Fyrons desire and ability to perform with the FQM Players wishes in mind.
This may sound rude. If a game that generates less Asteroids is desired, then choose a map option that has less Asteroids generated. In the latest Versions of FQM, there are "Mid-life No AST" quadrants, which have only 2 asteroid "fields" in most systems. The quadrant is otherwise identical to the equivalent Mid-life quadrant. This provides an option to keep the other FQM aspects, while not having so many asteroids around. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif You can easily make No AST Versions of most quadrants, simply by copying the Mid-life ones and changing the first 6 or so lines to match Cluster, Grid, etc. type maps, as most quadrants are identical except for the WP placement fields and such (they have the exact same system entries). This does not apply to the more exotic quadrants though, such as Ancient, Newborn, Old, Paradise, and so on.

I did not do this in FQM because that would require a huge increase in the number of quadrant options to wade through... but it is rather simple to mod in, and the modded quadrants can be used in PBW games without worry, as long as everyone has a Version of FQM, as QuadrantTypes.txt is only read when the map is generated by the host.

Fyron does have the feel on the FQM Players pulse I wish this were true, but unfortunately, only an extremely small minority of FQM players ever mention anything about their feelings on the mod to me, and only after I nag them too... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

[ May 06, 2004, 20:25: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

JLS

May 10th, 2004, 03:03 PM

Fyron, to bring you up to speed on what has been suggested by QB and a small number of AIC/FQM players.

What has been requested by Email and a few Posts for AI Campaigns next FQM ported update:
Is to lower all Asteroids in (ALL FQM systems), to include reducing Asteroids sectors orbiting a Star System to only a half dozen: resulting in a reduction for Planetary Systems by over 50% of its Asteroids in total. This I will not do.
I have explained this to QB and others that AIC may reduce the occurrence of FQM pure Asteroid Systems that may be randomly generated in some AIC/FQM specific Quad maps. However, I am reluctant to remove any or all of FQM Asteroid characteristics from the FQM port. We have many Players that DO like a few FQM pure Asteroid perfuse System fields in their game and do want to maintain the integrity of FQMs intent http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ May 10, 2004, 15:41: Message edited by: JLS ]

JLS

May 10th, 2004, 04:05 PM

Originally posted by QBrigid:
JLS origionaly had higher Gestation Vat values with earlier Versions of AIC and as I recall you thought this should be reduced then. I also agree we now should go back to the old 2.xx GV Values. QB, I believe Oleg's current recommendation is for a Facility with increased System reproduction rate for ALL players.

- - -
The reduction in Organic GV facility values Last year was in part, a compromise of the overall Organic Race benefit package.
For example: When a group of 10 Players sat down and played a very competitive se4 or AIC game and that 7 may choose the Organic race and that consistently the Organic Race may be chosen for its overall Abilities package then yes, we should look into the AICs racial benefit package.

= = =
However, as Oleg OA comment points out http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif ,,, Combined with PvK and Fyrons defined OA Posts. We all should agree, this will need to be reevaluated with Organic Race balance considerations to address any recent se4 OA regenerative changes.

[ May 10, 2004, 15:56: Message edited by: JLS ]

Fyron

May 10th, 2004, 07:00 PM

Originally posted by JLS:
Fyron, to bring you up to speed on what has been suggested by QB and a small number of AIC/FQM players.

What has been requested by Email and a few Posts for AI Campaigns next FQM ported update:
Is to lower all Asteroids in (ALL FQM systems), to include reducing Asteroids sectors orbiting a Star System to only a half dozen: resulting in a reduction for Planetary Systems by over 50% of its Asteroids in total. This I will not do.
I have explained this to QB and others that AIC may reduce the occurrence of FQM pure Asteroid Systems that may be randomly generated in some AIC/FQM specific Quad maps. However, I am reluctant to remove any or all of FQM Asteroid characteristics from the FQM port. We have many Players that DO like a few FQM pure Asteroid perfuse System fields in their game and do want to maintain the integrity of FQMs intent http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Thus, the compromise of adding extra quadrants that use systems with few asteroids. Everybody is happy. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

QBrigid

May 14th, 2004, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Thus, the compromise of adding extra quadrants that use systems with few asteroids. Everybody is happy. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif You will make the next FQM Version with maps that only have 3 or 4 Asteroides per system.

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

QBrigid

May 14th, 2004, 12:48 PM

Originally posted by JLS:
Furthermore QB, you are incorperating the PTF Posts into your observation that armor skipping weapons are effective against armor and this is true; however, adding Armor load restriction is not how to defuse your dilemma. You will find in-game avenues to counter Armor Skipping weapons and you may have to look outside the Psychic tech tree for your resolution.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif I don't want to leave the Psychic tech tree http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

I believe Oleg's current recommendation is for a Facility with increased System reproduction rate for ALL players.
- - -
The reduction in Organic GV facility values Last year was in part, a compromise of the overall Organic Race benefit package.
Sorry Oleg I misunderstood http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/blush.gif
Like you guys said, for all players just add a little more reproduction to the AIC system Bio Hospitals.

I would not give anything else to those Organic Bugs, they are (((way))) to tough allready.

[ May 14, 2004, 11:58: Message edited by: QBrigid ]

oleg

May 15th, 2004, 01:39 AM

I don't see any major faults in weapon/armou balance right now but would still love to see the restriction on the components numbers removed. If some fool wants to build ship with 20+ armour pieces, let him see the error of his way http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

QBrigid

May 15th, 2004, 01:44 AM

Originally posted by oleg:
I don't see any major faults in weapon/armou balance right now but would still love to see the restriction on the components numbers removed. If some fool wants to build ship with 20+ armour pieces, let him see the error of his way http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Your right Oleg. After reading everybodys comments, I now understand http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/blush.gif

[ May 14, 2004, 12:47: Message edited by: QBrigid ]

JLS

May 21st, 2004, 12:44 AM

AIC Players.

Have you ever assembled a Christmas present when the directions suggest that you do not tighten all the fasteners until the assembly is near complete; well this is the current feel that AIC Version 4.11 has - at this time.

I purpose that we add very little too the next Version and tighten as many fasteners as possible and just release the product se4 v1.91 ready - then add new tested ideas after this�

LAST CALL FOR WANTS and DESIRES:
PvK armor will remain as is, throughout AIC - with NO limits on Structural Armor or Racial Armor.
Mine fields at 60 and Sat fields at 50; ok here or is there any input?
Some discrete positive economic changes to include a wider margin towards the AIC Maintenance Characteristics.
Colonizer Tech cost lowered to 300000 from 400000, and Fast Colonizers reduced to 60000.

[ May 20, 2004, 23:49: Message edited by: JLS ]

oleg

May 21st, 2004, 03:23 AM

50 looks to small for satelites IMHO. Severe to-hit penalties makes satelites usefull only as missile platforms. Any half-decent AI fleet can go through 50 sat. with vert small loses. But 100 was probably too much, I agree. May be 70 ? But I would rather get better to-hit values for satelites and limit of 50. That will make them more robust against fighters.

PsychoTechFreak

May 21st, 2004, 05:38 PM

Originally posted by JLS:

PvK armor will remain as is, throughout AIC - with NO limits on Structural Armor or Racial Armor.
Great ! (oleg call me a fool http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif ).

Something else: religious talisman + the best sensor provides somewhat above 100+ % to hit chance. Isn't it the same as an "always hit" talisman, or am I wrong?

oleg

May 21st, 2004, 05:44 PM

Originally posted by PsychoTechFreak:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by JLS:

PvK armor will remain as is, throughout AIC - with NO limits on Structural Armor or Racial Armor.
Great ! (oleg call me a fool http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif ).

Something else: religious talisman + the best sensor provides somewhat above 100+ % to hit chance. Isn't it the same as an "always hit" talisman, or am I wrong? <hr /></blockquote>It is not the same. SE calculates the difference between to hit plus and minus bonuses and use it for calculating the chance to hit target. Even if you have for example +200 to hit but target has -200 defence bonus, it will result in 50/50 chance to hit. If I'm not mistaken here.

oleg

May 21st, 2004, 05:51 PM

I am categorically against lowing the colonizing cost !! This advance gives a huge boost to the empire development and MUST cost a fortune. I understand why people wants to low it though. In non-conected game you can get really unlucky but, hey, life is not fair ! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
Even then, computer complex II on the home world let you research 400000 tech in just 25 turns - nothing for non-conected start !

If you still decide to do this, please adjust AI research fules - move colonizer tech up the ladder so AI will research it earlier now, in line with human player priorities.

Fyron

May 21st, 2004, 07:49 PM

Originally posted by QBrigid:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Thus, the compromise of adding extra quadrants that use systems with few asteroids. Everybody is happy. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif You will make the next FQM Version with maps that only have 3 or 4 Asteroides per system.

Thanks Fyron http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif <hr /></blockquote>No, as the current Version has them with the 2 asteroids per system.

QBrigid

May 22nd, 2004, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by PsychoTechFreak:
[QB] <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by JLS:

PvK armor will remain as is, throughout AIC - with NO limits on Structural Armor or Racial Armor.
Great ! (oleg call me a fool http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif ).

[/B]<hr /></blockquote>JLS, most of us liked the idea of Hull Armor limited just to the amount of hulls and having the internal Structure armor and race armors unlimited.

Anyway, great MOD and this point is trivial http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

QBrigid

May 22nd, 2004, 05:06 PM

Originally posted by JLS:
AIC Players.
LAST CALL FOR WANTS and DESIRES:

Mine fields at 60 and Sat fields at 50; ok here or is there any input?
Some discrete positive economic changes to include a wider margin towards the AIC Maintenance Characteristics.
Colonizer Tech cost lowered to 300000 from 400000, and Fast Colonizers reduced to 60000. I agree with Oleg 50 SATS is too little. Why did you increase the mines up to 60 from the Tamper Bay Gamers suggested 50?

Maintenance Characteristics are fine.

Lower Colonizer tech cost since the AI no longer give the tech away. No biggie they will still trade but it is at a high price. 400k Cost is still good.

JLS, you forgot the increased System Hospital reproduction rate, are you still going to raise that and how about another 5% is that to much, Oleg what do you think?

Somebody mentioned Ancient Ruins not doing something, is just FQM or all the map types?

[ May 22, 2004, 16:40: Message edited by: QBrigid ]

QBrigid

May 22nd, 2004, 05:22 PM

Originally posted by oleg:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by PsychoTechFreak:

Something else: religious talisman + the best sensor provides somewhat above 100+ % to hit chance. Isn't it the same as an "always hit" talisman, or am I wrong?

It is not the same. SE calculates the difference between to hit plus and minus bonuses and use it for calculating the chance to hit target. Even if you have for example +200 to hit but target has -200 defence bonus, it will result in 50/50 chance to hit. If I'm not mistaken here. You are not mistaken Oleg. I just tested it and the vehical modifiers you are right it does apply. A religios player can get to 100+ with all top level techs and a smaller ship with top level components: Combat Bridge, Sick Bay and the religious talisman in theory and without the talisman the not so religios player can get close to 100.
For all players that would be alot of time in the research. Not to mention the defenceive stuff (ECM) and hull types of the other player you are trying to hit and like you said Oleg it could be 50/50 more or less depending on what ship you are up against.

[ May 22, 2004, 16:45: Message edited by: QBrigid ]

Grand Lord Vito

May 22nd, 2004, 09:54 PM

Minefields @ 40 or 60 sounds good because the early small transport launches 2 Groups of 10 mines nicely http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

JLS I always trade Colonizer Techs with the neutrals. They want a lot but at least they do trade. I did some numbers for a 300000 research point Colonizer type and it will take about one year @ Empire Research total of only 25k per turn. Staying at the 400000 cost works for me also.

The Hull Plating and SJ�s Armor combination is awesome, why not release it?

You raised the to-hit on the larger satellites in a past release and I like Olegs newest suggestion about raising the to-hit even more this way 50 sats will be quicker to place for the AI and us

oleg

May 22nd, 2004, 11:40 PM

Originally posted by QBrigid:
...Somebody mentioned Ancient Ruins not doing something, is just FQM or all the map types? I wqa talking about "dummy" ruins - those with zero tech. Before incorporating FQM such planets had all atributes of "ruins" planet. Now they are no longer listed as "special" planet and have no "ruins". It hapens on all maps and is caused by changes in stellar abilities file. Hope JLS has fixed this already.

oleg

May 22nd, 2004, 11:47 PM

Originally posted by QBrigid:
... JLS, you forgot the increased System Hospital reproduction rate, are you still going to raise that and how about another 5% is that to much, Oleg what do you think?

I like it. Since the most population growth occurs on only one planet, HW, each 1% gives you just 2 extra people per 1 year. Increased rate on low population planets gives no benefit due to the integer round up. Surely not worth even bother building special facility if it is only 1% bonus above Cultural Centers bonus.

JLS

May 23rd, 2004, 12:00 AM

Originally posted by oleg:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by QBrigid:
JLS, you forgot the increased System Hospital reproduction rate, are you still going to raise that and how about another 5% is that to much, Oleg what do you think?

Reply posted by Oleg:
I like it. Since the most population growth occurs on only one planet, HW, each 1% gives you just 2 extra people per 1 year. Increased rate on low population planets gives no benefit due to the integer round up. Surely not worth even bother building special facility if it is only 1% bonus above Cultural Centers bonus. <hr /></blockquote>Agreed, its in and Oleg thanks for the suggestion.

I wqa talking about "dummy" ruins - those with zero tech. Before incorporating FQM such planets had all atributes of "ruins" planet. Not as many dummies as before - but there will be a few.

I am categorically against lowing the colonizing cost !! This seems the overall opinion - Colonizing tech will remain at 400k http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

please adjust AI research fules - move colonizer tech up the ladder so AI will research it earlier now, in line with human player priorities. GLV also recommended this change due to "se4 v1.91" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
GAS, ICE or ROCK type AI Players will take a longer in (CONNECTED) games for the second Colonizer type and with a potential delay for the third Colonizer Tech for some AI Players in (NON-Connected) games.
- more so with the rock start AI Players http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

But I would rather get better to-hit values for satelites and limit of 50. That will make them more robust against fighters. Agreed - it will be so.

[ May 23, 2004, 00:06: Message edited by: JLS ]

JLS

May 23rd, 2004, 12:25 AM

Originally posted by PsychoTechFreak:

Something else: religious talisman + the best sensor provides somewhat above 100+ % to hit chance. Isn't it the same as an "always hit" talisman, or am I wrong? You have a point PTF, perhaps a reduction of 10 or 20 percent to the Talisman. What are the thoughts on a reduction?

[ May 22, 2004, 23:34: Message edited by: JLS ]

oleg

May 23rd, 2004, 12:37 AM

No ! What would be a point in chosing Religious trait then ? Only shrines ? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

Besides, high level RT uses a lot of space. Other races can match it by sticking to smaller ships http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

JLS

May 23rd, 2004, 12:43 AM

Originally posted by Grand Lord Vito:
Minefields @ 40 or 60 sounds good because the early small transport launches 2 Groups of 10 mines nicely http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
I would perfer 40/Fld if this could fly with the Players http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

The Hull Plating and SJ�s Armor combination is awesome, why not release it?
Thanks http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
However, lets address what we have and save the rest for the Enterprise TV Series (tm) - AIC addition.

[ May 22, 2004, 23:44: Message edited by: JLS ]

PsychoTechFreak

May 23rd, 2004, 05:11 PM

Originally posted by JLS:
[QUOTE]..., perhaps a reduction of 10 or 20 percent to the Talisman. What are the thoughts on a reduction? I agree with oleg, no reduction please. I just had a wrong idea about the "to hit chances". Since there are good ecm components to counter, I think it is balanced (and the talisman takes a lot of space also).

PTF

crash52

May 24th, 2004, 01:32 AM

I bought SEIV Gold quite some time ago, have played it a lot with some minor mods, and lately played seval games with the TDM mod. I just downloaded the AIC V4.11 mod and am starting to play it. Here is my question/problem. I am trying to find any explination of the changes in this mod. There was a brief readme text in the download, but there are a lot of new facilities in this one. I bet there is a post/link somewhere here that would answer all or at least most of my questions, but on a dial up connection, even reading the 91 pages of this thread is VERY time consuming. Thanks to any one who can point me in the right direction!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

Fyron

May 24th, 2004, 07:06 AM

wqa talking about "dummy" ruins - those with zero tech. Before incorporating FQM such planets had all atributes of "ruins" planet. Now they are no longer listed as "special" planet and have no "ruins". It hapens on all maps and is caused by changes in stellar abilities file. Hope JLS has fixed this already.
The solution is to add a dummy ancient unique ruins tech area, then make sure that all dummy ruins are using the unique area number for that tech area. This will eliminate all issues of dummy ruins planets not having the icon displayed and such.

Reducing the number of dummy ruins planets reduces the fun of FQM maps...

[ May 24, 2004, 06:08: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

JLS

May 24th, 2004, 03:14 PM

Originally posted by crash52:
There was a brief readme text in the download, but there are a lot of new facilities in this one. I must admit AI Campaign started a few years ago as a hobby - to aid the AI Player in a few Economic and tactical areas. I must say, it has become an avocation since the first public release. At some point the Players and I must put a comprehensive guide together; perhaps after this upcoming AIC Version release is in balance - after the Players beta testing and accommodations.

Although, until then: Please, review the History AIC file after you have read the existing breif how-too AIC readme.file - they both will be found in the se4\AIC Folder

JLS

May 24th, 2004, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by Grand Lord Vito:
The Hull Plating and SJ�s Armor combination is awesome, why not release it?
A compromise GLV, QB and other AIC Players - if you will.

We can retain the entire AIC complement of PvK�s very familiar and {{{very effective}}} Armories. In addition, we can have (ONE) form similar to that of Fyrons * Adamants leaky Armor, that is to say: The Armor form that is not Emisive or have the se4 Armor ability: with its inherent principle effects of the random protection - as defined previously by Fyron.

= = =

This new AIC addition for (leaky) Armor will be inexpensive and with its very nature - random in protection. If you will for a moment, please imagine; two new components:
One with a load value of 1kt - this is the Small Bracer made of Titanium and applied to reinforce any narrow sections of the Ships bulkhead.

The other new component would be the main Bulkhead Brace with a load value of 5kt made also from the Titanium compositions and applied to reinforce the Ships bulkhead; with origins from and to be improved upon thru the Armor Tech areas. The Structure strengths has yet to be determined; however, do not expect them to be high.

JLS

* * * * * * * *
For those of you that may be unfamiliar with Imperator Fyrons Adamant Mod; Please review it, this is a well laid out and is an all encompassing and comprehensive se4 MOD. I expect, you will very much enjoy it's play, and the far reaching new standards - Adamant has achieved.

Please Visit http://adamant.spaceempires.net/ for a more detailed description.

[ May 24, 2004, 17:42: Message edited by: JLS ]

Fyron

May 24th, 2004, 10:02 PM

This new AIC addition for (leaky) Armor will be inexpensive and with its very nature - random in protection. If you will for a moment, please imagine; two new components:
One with a load value of 1kt - this is the Small Bracer made of Titanium and applied to reinforce any narrow sections of the Ships bulkhead.

The other new component would be the main Bulkhead Brace with a load value of 5kt made also from the Titanium compositions and applied to reinforce the Ships bulkhead; with origins from and to be improved upon thru the Armor Tech areas. The Structure strengths has yet to be determined; however, do not expect them to be high. Actually, they do need to be fairly high. They need to have at least twice as many hit points as the average "internal" components to start having any noticeable effect. Leaky armor works best when they have a lot more hit points than internals. They still leak a lot of damage through, but if they have about as many hit points as internals, they will do very little.

Also, keep in mind that Suicide Junkie, not myself, came up with the first leaky armor system for Babylon 5 Mod.

JLS

May 24th, 2004, 10:34 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Actually, they do need to be fairly high. They need to have at least twice as many hit points as the average "internal" components to start having any noticeable effect. Leaky armor works best when they have a lot more hit points than internals. They still leak a lot of damage through, but if they have about as many hit points as internals, they will do very little.
Understood; however, AIC will have the usual Components with Armor and Emissive abilities (PvK Armories). This newly added Structural support component will have (no abilities) and should offset (somewhat) at a random basis from an attack.

I may not understand.
With a high Structure; would this not absorb this blow fully?

An example: Although I will equal the new Armor Brace component (structure values) to that of AIC critical Components for an assumed randomness, please refer to reference below and what are the Players thoughts?

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Name := Bracer
Description := Smaller Titanium armor brace applied to reinforce narrow sections of the Ships bulkhead.
Pic Num := 276
Tonnage Space Taken := 1
Tonnage Structure := 5
Cost Minerals := 5
Cost Organics := 0
Cost Radioactives := 0
Vehicle Type := Ship\Base
Supply Amount Used := 0
Restrictions := Four Per Vehicle
General Group := Armor
Family := 1110
Roman Numeral := 0
Custom Group := 0
Number of Tech Req := 2
Tech Area Req 1 := Ship Construction
Tech Level Req 1 := 1
Tech Area Req 2 := Human Balance Tech
Tech Level Req 2 := 1
Number of Abilities := 0
Weapon Type := None

Name := Structural Brace
Description := Titanium armor applied to reinforce the Ships internal bulkheads.
Pic Num := 28
Tonnage Space Taken := 5
Tonnage Structure := 10
Cost Minerals := 10
Cost Organics := 0
Cost Radioactives := 0
Vehicle Type := Ship\Base
Supply Amount Used := 0
Restrictions := None
General Group := Armor
Family := 101
Roman Numeral := 0
Custom Group := 0
Number of Tech Req := 2
Tech Area Req 1 := Ship Construction
Tech Level Req 1 := 1
Tech Area Req 2 := Human Balance Tech
Tech Level Req 2 := 1
Number of Abilities := 0
Weapon Type := None

Name := Structural Brace I
Description := Titanium armor applied to reinforce the Ships internal bulk heads.
Pic Num := 28
Tonnage Space Taken := 5
Tonnage Structure := 15
Cost Minerals := 15
Cost Organics := 0
Cost Radioactives := 0
Vehicle Type := Ship\Base
Supply Amount Used := 0
Restrictions := None
General Group := Armor
"~"

[ May 25, 2004, 01:59: Message edited by: JLS ]

Fyron

May 25th, 2004, 04:53 AM

Those components would be effectively useless. Each individual component needs more hit points than average internals to even begin to have an effect. Several times as many hit points are needed to get decent protection.

Leaky armors should have more hit points than normal armors, as they do not have the hit first ability, and do not provide magic wall protection.

JLS

May 25th, 2004, 04:43 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Those components would be effectively useless. Each individual component needs more hit points than average internals to even begin to have an effect. Several times as many hit points are needed to get decent protection.

Leaky armors should have more hit points than normal armors, as they do not have the hit first ability, and do not provide magic wall protection. Understood - however, this new (1 or 5kt spaced) Brace Component is not the Primary Armor in protection for AIC - Also to say (leaky armor ) is not a true Armor per say, it is a Component with NO ability as it excludes Armored Abilities. Hence, it hangs aloft as any other Component with a chance to be stricken down by an attackers broadsides.

With PvK�s Plate, Ablative and Emissive Plate and some Racial Armory for AIC; will yield all - the first hit requirements, expected from any Armor, and that is: to receive any normal fired weapons hit, first.

However, for Players not endowed with armor skipping racial weapon or a Null Weapon and that does not solely desire to rely on Shields, due to the prospect of a combined attack that may also include the standard Shield Depleting Weapons, then - absolutely yes, (leaky armor) in general, is a viable defense - as is any High Structured Component that is low in cost: not unlike PvKs (high Structure) Shield Generator that was implemented; in part, for a defense against Engine Overloading Weapons with a dual role that also served as leaky armor - introduced in a past PvK Proportions MOD.
- - - - -

Now to question: When all armor ability is vacant from a Ship/Base or Planet - what is the determining factor for the random vulnerability of the remaining Components (internals), this I must ask. For if it is the largest Structure that may become the most logical target - then a Larger Structure would replace ARMORED abilities and become a full replacement or alternative to Armor ability - hence if true, immediately voiding all investments of an Armor Skipping dependent Race and rendering his, her, or the AI - long endured game, useless. Would you not say?

On the other hand, if the random factor is based on equality of structures, and if so - the more 20kt structured (leaky armor) would positively influence the survivability of a 20kt Engine; However, in all probability less provocative in its defense when protecting a 30kt weapon or Component - If true, would you not also agree.

In either above case or even neither - The Armored (PvK PLATE, Ablative and various other Armories) as means to defend a Ship, Unit, Base or Planet (are) readily available and that the main reason to choose a leaky Armor is to defend against an Armor Skipping Race, then - Surly I/we do not want an immediate cancellation of that Armor Skipping Races Abilities; however, a modest tool for the defender should be of no great consequence.

= = =

With a few (1 spaced) Bracer's at 5kt Structure, it may brace a small 5kt Component and certainly would add nicely to fill a Ship with four or less kt of space remaining for those that wish not to use the v5.0 1kt Boarding D Squads.

With the first basic 10kt Brace and all spaced at 5; also available at the beginning of your game, may have a slight influence for the protection of some Sensors, Bridge, Life Support and etc. And that price, it cant be a bad thing.

Level-I Brace from Armor Research one - will have 15kt and still just Basic in its nature.

Level-II Brace from Armor Research two - a few of these at 20 kt may have a fine partnership with the 20kt Engines

Level-III Brace - At 30kt, and with a few of these installed; I believe some Weapon Systems and Shields will be in very good company.

With its respective Armor Research of four a Level-IV Brace - will be 45 KT, and Level V at 50kt and the probable increase is plus 5kt thus, thru the remaining armor levels.

[ May 25, 2004, 18:23: Message edited by: JLS ]

Fyron

May 25th, 2004, 09:17 PM

Run some combat simulations in Adamant Mod with leaky armors to see them in action.

When determining which component is hit when there is no "armor", the algorithm is something along the lines of a proportional chance to be hit based on percentage of total sturcture (hit points) that a component has out of the total remaining structure of the ship. However, components with more hit points are slightly biased to be hit a bit more often than they would be if it were truly random. This does not mean that they will always be hit first, far from it. What it means is that they have a higher chance of being hit first than weaker components, but weaker components still have a good chance of being hit first.

This is why leaky armors need a lot more hit points per component than internals. If they have less, the internals will tend to die long before the leaky armors. If they have the same amount, the leaky armors don't really provide much protection either.

Also, leaky armors should have more hit points than other armors, otherwise they are relegated to extremely trivial components. Sure, they provide meager protection against armor skipping weapons, but if the leaky armors have low hit points, this protection is fairly non-existant.

JLS

May 26th, 2004, 01:42 AM

Are their any AIC players that would like to make a few neutrals for v5.0? we will need a half dozen in a few weeks.

Impulsive to friendly are required, please no Xenophobes, Violent, Psycos or Serine - with or without a Racial Trait would be fine.

[ May 26, 2004, 00:46: Message edited by: JLS ]

JLS

May 26th, 2004, 01:44 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Run some combat simulations in Adamant Mod with leaky armors to see them in action.
Will do, thanks Fyron http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Kana

May 26th, 2004, 05:25 PM

Are their any AIC players that would like to make a few neutrals for v5.0? we will need a half dozen in a few weeks.Do you want pictures and AI? I could consider submiting one of the races I'm going to add to my SFB Mod...Of course that is if I have the time...No Promises...

Kana

JLS

May 26th, 2004, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by Kana:
Do you want pictures and AI?Thanks Kana http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

No pictures required.
A Gas or Ice Neutral is perfered. This way we will have a varied Colonizer Techs - for trades with the Human Players http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

If you wish to give them a Racial Trait, please refer to Neutral002 - Nultoh General File.
Otherwise, please feel free to distribute the 1500 points as you like.

Changes to date: TexRax will become an Organic Race and Kithra may become a gas Race

= = = = = = = = =
Reference From Neutral002 General File.

Opt 1 Num Characteristics := 0
Race Opt 1 Num Advanced Traits := 3
Race Opt 1 Adv Trait 1 := AI 1 (a must)
Race Opt 1 Adv Trait 2 := NEU (a must)
Race Opt 1 Adv Trait 3 := Psychic (Optional Trait)

[ May 26, 2004, 19:57: Message edited by: JLS ]

JLS

May 27th, 2004, 12:54 AM

Originally posted by oleg:
50 looks to small for satelites IMHO. Severe to-hit penalties makes satelites usefull only as missile platforms. Any half-decent AI fleet can go through 50 sat. with vert small loses. But 100 was probably too much, I agree. May be 70 ? But I would rather get better to-hit values for satelites and limit of 50. That will make them more robust against fighters. Agreed Oleg.
50 Satellites per field is of no help for the Neutrals, and this did not yield the Human Player much defense after 150 hundred turns at AI Low bonus.

Also agreed, for this release all Satellites will be at se4 standard to-hits.

Rollos DevNulls (Towed Missiles pods) can now be loaded to 3 per ship retaining the 5 spacing; however, with an increased supply usage - these guys on several missile frigates can really go long ways to holding a warp point.
As per your past recommendation the Towed Bombardment Missiles defense has been beefed up back to specs. Ships can now tow 2 abd with the retained the 10 spacing, also with an increased supply usage.

[ May 27, 2004, 00:57: Message edited by: JLS ]

crash52

May 28th, 2004, 01:29 AM

I have a question about the Cryslonite fighters in combat. I had 5 frigates, each had basic bridge (which is slightly degrading), two Point Defense Cannons II (+25%), Combat Sensors II (+10%), 5 Contra Terrene Engine I, Life Support, Basic Quarters, 2 Solar Collectors III, and two Seeking Parasites II (I created a mini missle mount). In 30 turns of combat with Cryslonite fighters (some small & some med), none of the fighters having any ECM or anything else I could see to degrade my chance to hit, my 5 Frigates got chewed up, and I scored ZERO hits with my point defense! That's 100% miss! In an earlier game the same thing happened, but my frigates had Master Computer I, I assumed that caused it, so I restarted the same game from saved first turn. I don't see how I could have 100% miss, am I over looking something here? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

Fyron

May 28th, 2004, 01:43 AM

Fighters generally have a large ECM bonus built into their hulls.

JLS

May 28th, 2004, 03:49 AM

Originally posted by crash52:
I have a question about the Cryslonite fighters in combat. I had 5 frigates, each had basic bridge (which is slightly degrading), two Point Defense Cannons II (+25%), Combat Sensors II (+10%), 5 Contra Terrene Engine I, Life Support, Basic Quarters, 2 Solar Collectors III, and two Seeking Parasites II (I created a mini missle mount). In 30 turns of combat with Cryslonite fighters (some small & some med), none of the fighters having any ECM or anything else I could see to degrade my chance to hit, my 5 Frigates got chewed up, and I scored ZERO hits with my point defense! That's 100% miss! In an earlier game the same thing happened, but my frigates had Master Computer I, I assumed that caused it, so I restarted the same game from saved first turn. I don't see how I could have 100% miss, am I over looking something here? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif Fighters are tiny, quick and hard to hit targets. The best way to kill an enemy fighter is with your own Fighter Interceptors.
Although a Frigate with all else even, and with level 2 Combat sensor and level 2 Point defense installed; would have fair targeting:
Good maneuverability on frigates increases chance to hit targets +15
Combat Sensors II +10 with Point Defense Cannons II another +25 = Totaling a plus 50% Targeting http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Less the poor reaction time from the master computers at -5 targeting and -20 at defensive maneuvers http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

To calculate the fantastic maneuverability of the enemy fighter, well this gets tricky depending what the fighters payload is - but it is not going to be a good match - considering that Master Computers are best installed for ships relegated to the work tasks of convoy duty and other support roles. Pilot and low level Master Computers have very slow reaction times in combat.

~Also to note that the Basic (Bridge, Crew Quarters, Life etc. Are not designed or equipped to handle any, not in the least - the necessary devices that are required in combat.
They are fine in support ships or support bases... Possably ships or bases that (only) fire guided missiles - though not in any platform with derect fired weapons.

= = = = =

You will need to counter with Fighters as soon as your adversary shows his technological advanced Fighters.
You may launch them off your Transport Decks: if fitted with fighter bays - until you get a few Carriers at the ready.
You may also equip your ships with higher levels of Combat Sensors and Point Defense Cannons that are great against missile but can land amiss against some fast fighters. In the advance engineering techs for some PD mounts or a little research with Energy Pulse Weapons will lend you a welcomed weapon and this would be the very accurate (Point - Defense Beam weapon) that is a "small mobile energy beam turrets which are used to target and destroy incoming fighters".

= = =
If you are new to AIC, you may want to set the AI Bonus at None for your first few games. This will slow the AI research down allowing you a little more time.

[ May 28, 2004, 04:23: Message edited by: JLS ]

JLS

May 29th, 2004, 12:20 AM

Originally posted by Grand Lord Vito:
Point - Defense Beam weapons get lost in the Energy Pulse techs. Do you think they should be moved into the Point-Defense weapons tech branch?

Also Fighter Carriers that rely on the intercepters to take out the incoming enemy missiles and fighters http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Good idea for the PDB - it will be less obscure with Point Defense Research.

The problem with CV�s depending on Interceptors, is that the Players will have to (ADD) the Strategy for them to prioritize what they want that Fighter to do after they consider that fighters weapons load.

Grand Lord Vito

May 29th, 2004, 01:53 AM

Originally posted by JLS:
You may also equip your ships with higher levels of Combat Sensors and Point Defense Cannons that are great against missile but can land amiss against some fast fighters. In the advance engineering techs for some PD mounts or a little research with Energy Pulse Weapons will lend you a welcomed weapon and this would be the very accurate (Point - Defense Beam weapon) that is a "small mobile energy beam turrets which are used to target and destroy incoming fighters".
Point - Defense Beam weapons get lost in the Energy Pulse techs. Do you think they should be moved into the Point-Defense weapons tech branch?

~Also to note that the Basic (Bridge, Crew Quarters, Life etc. Are not designed or equipped to handle any, not in the least - the necessary devices that are required in combat.
They are fine in support ships or support bases... Possably ships or bases that (only) fire guided missiles - though not in any platform with derect fired weapons.
The basic components work great on the warp point defense missile frigates. Also Fighter Carriers that rely on the intercepters to take out the incoming enemy missiles and fighters http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ May 28, 2004, 13:19: Message edited by: Grand Lord Vito ]

Grand Lord Vito

May 29th, 2004, 01:58 AM

Originally posted by JLS:
Are their any AIC players that would like to make a few neutrals for v5.0? we will need a half dozen in a few weeks.

Impulsive to friendly are required, please no Xenophobes, Violent, Psycos or Serine - with or without a Racial Trait would be fine. Count me in http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

oleg

May 29th, 2004, 09:02 AM

Originally posted by JLS:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Grand Lord Vito:
Point - Defense Beam weapons get lost in the Energy Pulse techs. Do you think they should be moved into the Point-Defense weapons tech branch?

Also Fighter Carriers that rely on the intercepters to take out the incoming enemy missiles and fighters http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Good idea for the PDB - it will be less obscure with Point Defense Research.

The problem with CV’s depending on Interceptors, is that the Players will have to (ADD) the Strategy for them to prioritize what they want that Fighter to do after they consider that fighters weapons load. <hr /></blockquote>There is a default "fighter attack" strategy for this purpose already http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

I like current PDB research set up and don't want meson bLaster I requirement removed. But I always like complex research net http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

JLS

May 29th, 2004, 03:00 PM

Originally posted by oleg:
There is a default "fighter attack" strategy for this purpose already http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif
Understood; however, the pure AIC Fighter Interceptor - could be designed by the Human Player with only Cannons and (no) standard anti-ship/planet weaponry. With an added Interception strategy set by the Human Player to his liking - so that the Interceptors and with the Turbo afterburners seek out Fighters, Drones, Satellites and Seeking Missiles-only.

The default Fighter Strategy - could be set for the general purpose combat role with the target Planet (off) and Fighters first; also to a Hman Players liking - as not to waist the valuable fighters to the Planets batteries.

Reserving Planet Attack with a fighter set exclusively for Planets and no other stratagems and thereby only Cluster bombs and shielding may be the only weapons load.

It depends how clever the Human players wants to involve themself with the Empire Stratagems. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

I like current PDB research set up and don't want meson bLaster I requirement removed. But I always like complex research net http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Agreed, a logical complexity is a must. However, new players do not find the PBD readily - or find the PDB after the enemy fighter have already done their nasty http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

Perhaps Point Defense tech 2 will release an (Anti-Fighter Defense) research branch and from there the PDB can be realized.

[ May 29, 2004, 14:23: Message edited by: JLS ]

oleg

May 30th, 2004, 09:18 AM

There is no problem with pure interceptors as long as the assigned strategy does not check out fighters as targets. They happily zoom around and fire on all small things http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

JLS

May 31st, 2004, 01:15 AM

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif I here you http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

I once made torpedo bombers with level 2 rockets, and then upgraded from level 1 and FORGOT to REASSIGN them the (torpedo strategy) that would allow them to bypass all incoming enemy fighters etc that would have been saved for the Intercepters, and just target those bloody AI Medium Transport cv Support Ships. Needless to say - my TB-2's where somewhat confused in battle.

[ May 30, 2004, 12:22: Message edited by: JLS ]

Fyron

May 31st, 2004, 03:17 AM

I do not believe that the facilities which are supposed to increase the chance of an event happening in a system work. You might want to remove them. See this thread, which has emails between myself and Aaron Hall, regarding the abilities Change Bad Event Chance - System and Change Bad Intel Chance - System:
*(thread link* (http://www.shrapnelgames.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=011178;p=1#000 010)

JLS

May 31st, 2004, 02:29 PM

In my correspondence with Aaron, I view a different assessment in regards to the end result of System Event modifiers, then as you may have Fyron - as such, Veneration will stay in AIC, but thank you for the link.

However, as not to confuse the communiqu� in which system Event modifiers are resolved - we did not discuss the Intel result that you posted� Furthermore, your article posted March 13, 2004 13:26; as it applies to system modifiers are indeed interesting.

[ May 31, 2004, 15:15: Message edited by: JLS ]

Grand Lord Vito

June 5th, 2004, 03:01 PM

[ June 05, 2004, 14:14: Message edited by: Grand Lord Vito ]

Grand Lord Vito

June 5th, 2004, 03:12 PM

Originally posted by Grand Lord Vito:
JLS.

About the beta test for v5.0.. The human player economy is getting to good, it is turn 400 and I have about equal ship strength and a few less planets then most of the AI. My rads and orgs are about 2000 surplus per turn but my mineral surplus is to high about 20,000 high. At this rate I will out pace the AI?

I like the way the Computer Pilot is cheaper and is available just with Computers 1 tech.

Have you thought of adding maintenance to facilities in AIC?

I still think 3 missile pods per ship are to powerful against the AI.

Everything else is great. The neutrals trade there Colonization techs easier now but the major AI players now ask for a lot for there techs. Nice way to balance the AI to the effects the new v1.91 had on the old v4.11 AIC. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

When do you think we will be finished? My friends are waiting to play our next LAN game

JLS

June 5th, 2004, 03:51 PM

Originally posted by Grand Lord Vito:

About the beta test for v5.0.. The human player economy is getting to good, it is turn 400 and I have about equal ship strength and a few less planets then most of the AI. My rads and orgs are about 2000 surplus per turn but my mineral surplus is to high about 20,000 high. At this rate I will out pace the AI?
What is the AI bonus in your game and how is your research and Intel totals. In the AI LOW bonus - I have reduced the AI growth in the first half of a game, as compared to previous AIC releases.

Is it also possible that you are heavily invested in Mining Colonies and are you falling behind the AI in other areas? You may have more ships but are they better and can you protect them againt the AI intel and will they win the day in a fight?
Please send me your save.
Have you thought of adding maintenance to facilities in AIC?
I have spoken to SJ about adding some maintenance values on the AIC Debarkation Facilities and he agrees that this would be a fine addition. However, the two facilities above will be the only facilities with the addition of maintenance similar to that of the new SJ GritEcon mod as this is one of SJ's new mods signatures, and we should wait until the ink dries and well after the SJ MOD is released� Furthermore, other then the AIC Debarkation modification, the AIC economy is primarily structured already, and I see no reason to make any major Conceptual changes.
I still think 3 missile pods per ship are to powerful against the AI.
Perhaps... I will wait to here more from the other players.
Everything else is great. The neutrals trade there Colonization techs easier now but the major AI players now ask for a lot for there techs. Nice way to balance the AI to the effects the new v1.91 had on the old v4.11 AIC.
This was just a simple adjustment to the AI files to address the newest se4 game update.
I am only sorry I was unable to attend to this sooner.

[ June 05, 2004, 17:57: Message edited by: JLS ]

PsychoTechFreak

June 5th, 2004, 07:11 PM

Regarding the fighter strategy discussion some Posts before:
Do we need some more pre-programmed strategies, like WP close combat strategies, planet blockades, ... what makes sense...
Similar: More fleet group formations maybe?

Or is everybody ok with the current programs, without adding own strategies?

JLS

June 5th, 2004, 09:03 PM

Capital idea PTF - we will put something together.
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

PsychoTechFreak

June 6th, 2004, 05:00 AM

Originally posted by JLS:
Capital idea PTF - we will put something together.
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I assume Fyron would be the one to ask about this. If I would have to look into strategies, I guess I would just plagiarize from his USM (but I am not sure if every entry in this mod has proved to be true / useful).

Paul1980au

June 6th, 2004, 09:09 AM

I still hpe a final Version 2 is considered for SE4 to reward the fans - probably after SE5 is in the final stages though. Im sure a lot more bug fixing and final balancing and upgrades for SE4 Version 2 could be done. This would also encourage more people to buy SE5

Grand Lord Vito

June 6th, 2004, 03:31 PM

Originally posted by PsychoTechFreak:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by JLS:
Capital idea PTF - we will put something together.
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I assume Fyron would be the one to ask about this. If I would have to look into strategies, I guess I would just plagiarize from his USM (but I am not sure if every entry in this mod has proved to be true / useful). <hr /></blockquote>The default strategy file is easy to change. Fyrons Strategy mod is awesome for the stock game and a lot of players make there own strategies anyway and just save it to there Empire.

JLS will Fyrons ultimate Strategies mod break the AI.

Grand Lord Vito

June 6th, 2004, 03:46 PM

Originally posted by JLS:
Originally posted by Grand Lord Vito:

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> About the beta test for v5.0.. The human player economy is getting to good, it is turn 400 and I have about equal ship strength and a few less planets then most of the AI. My rads and orgs are about 2000 surplus per turn but my mineral surplus is to high about 20,000 high. What is the AI bonus in your game and how is your research and Intel totals. In the AI LOW bonus - I have reduced the AI growth in the first half of a game, as compared to previous AIC releases.

Is it also possible that you are heavily invested in Mining Colonies and are you falling behind the AI in other areas? You may have more ships but are they better and can you protect them againt the AI intel and will they win the day in a fight?
Please send me your save.
<hr /></blockquote>I sent you the save.
The AI is at low bonus.
I do have a lot of Mining colonies and a few intel and research. I am 4th place overall and 5th to the AI in Intel with about 10k of intel and 2nd in Reserch at 60k but I lead in total techs with 16 more then the Terrens. I have 2 wars one with Robi and the other war with Tex and I think that war was brought on by a third AI Players intel because I did not declare war and I cant see Tex wanting a war.

JLS

June 6th, 2004, 05:16 PM

Originally posted by Grand Lord Vito:
I sent you the save.
The AI is at low bonus.
I do have a lot of Mining colonies and a few intel and research. I am 4th place overall and 5th to the AI in Intel with about 10k of intel and 2nd in Reserch at 60k but I lead in total techs with 16 more then the Terrens. I have 2 wars one with Robi and the other war with Tex and I think that war was brought on by a third AI Players intel because I did not declare war and I cant see Tex wanting a war. Your Empire is in great shape GLV, it is almost two full clusters of a medium sized AIC Twisted Galaxies quadrant - Solidly defended between Black holes on both flanks.

You are a Science Temporal Race and you are indeed fortunate enough to have a large empire with many planets; however, the Terren are leading you in all decisive areas and when they are thru with the Nultah - you may be the next Terran target.

You are at Stellar Manipulations 3, if you research Tectonics 1 this will allow you to make a Warp closer and close the northern Black Hole entrance from the Terrains (AFTER ) you open an alternative warp opening to the Nultah (NOT TO LOOSE CONTACT) and furthering the distance that the Terrens must travel to attack Nultah and delaying there eventual fall as a result for Terran fuel concerns. But, once the Nultah do fall - the Terrens will use the Nultah bases to supply there ships on a probable expedition against you.

= = = =

Stellar Manipulation will indeed use up late game Mineral Surplus and you will have to budget and supplement RADS and Organics thru trade. Also do not overlook Planet Utilizations to beef up any weak resource areas.

Speaking of SM, you also can open a Warp point from the Praetorians system (out side) of your Eastern Black hole directly to the Sergeitte Colonies - I am sure this will stir things up between them and thus now possibly avoiding a direct conflict with the Praetorians and your Empire http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif - Speaking of the Praetorians it would be to your best interests to build a System Warp preventing Facility in some of the adjacent but (not connected) Praetorian systems. At this stage in the game they have them and if they open a warp you will be unable to close it. (Then here may come the Sergetti if they do become friends) http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Granted the Praetorians were nice enough to replace the Novian Star, at Sindarious - do not expect them to clear the two Nebulas in your South easter Cluster- Perhaps if you Clear them thru SM they will be kind enough to create a star for you in those System as well.
Now, once that is done; you will need Grave Plates and Cables along with a Ring World Generator and this will require more resources then you can imagine. Also to say you have NO static Defense Bases at the Black hole warp entrances, I doubt your 100 SATS will hold against any Terren or Praetorian fighter Attacks - at this stage in your game.

As you can see there is much that needs to be done or can be done - to use up resources in the latter part of the game. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

By the way, why have you not committed yourself against the BobRobi? This fight will surly be interesting and they breath oxygen and this will complement your Carbo breathers.

Good Luck and thanks for the feed back.
Keep up the Emails http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

(PS: I saved your map - now all I have to do is to start in that cluster and give it a go)

[ June 06, 2004, 17:56: Message edited by: JLS ]

JLS

June 6th, 2004, 05:48 PM

Originally posted by PsychoTechFreak:
I assume Fyron would be the one to ask about this. If I would have to look into strategies, I guess I would just plagiarize from his USM (but I am not sure if every entry in this mod has proved to be true / useful).
Agreed PTF, Fyron USM's Default_Strategies File is well done - indeed, and (MAY) only require a few changes to accommodate AIC or a Players liking.

= = =

If players wish to use the Fyrons USM - Only paste the USM (DefaultStrategies data File) itself, in the MODS data folder.
The AIC AI should not be effected, - they will read there own Strategies that are located in there individual AIC AI Folder.

[ June 06, 2004, 17:06: Message edited by: JLS ]

Makinus

June 7th, 2004, 05:43 PM

Just a question: AIC AIs use the Planet Utilization facilities? especially the Mineral/Organics/Rads improving ones?

Fyron

June 7th, 2004, 06:11 PM

If you want to expand the formations in AIC to be able to accomodate at least 60-70 ships (rows in the back are just fine), they can be added to USM...

JLS

June 7th, 2004, 06:16 PM

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

JLS

June 7th, 2004, 06:22 PM

Originally posted by Makinus:
Just a question: AIC AIs use the Planet Utilization facilities? especially the Mineral/Organics/Rads improving ones? No, value improvement is of little value to the AIC AI Player and it will only benefit a Human Player - if so lucky in a capture. Planet contitions are not that important to the AIC AI either.

However,it is the Religious AI Players nature (only) to improve the Planets overall value.

Thanks to the Oleg Engineering Settelment (great addition to AIC) - They WILL Change their Atmosphere http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

[ June 07, 2004, 17:27: Message edited by: JLS ]

Fyron

June 7th, 2004, 06:27 PM

Originally posted by JLS:
Thanks Fyron http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I should also point out that, once added to USM, they can be readded to AIC, along with all of the other formations. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Grand Lord Vito

June 10th, 2004, 01:59 AM

Originally posted by JLS:

By the way, why have you not committed yourself against the BobRobi? This fight will surly be interesting and they breath oxygen and this will complement your Carbo breathers.
Sure as if you diddnt already know.
I have to pay tribute of a few thousand resources every 10 turns or so to keep he damm Praetorians amiable to me. They were starting to want more and frequent every time a started a new Colony just to keep them warm.

Your stellar manipulation suggestion worked. I opened a warp point from the Praetorians home system to the Seregetti system and soon the Sergetti lost all its colonies in that system. Ther now at war http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif and my Fleets can now end this dreadful defensive waiting game with the Praetorians and cruise on wipe the Robi (slaves for the Dell Empire).
Why dont I just close the Nultah Home System warp to my area and be rid of the Terran threat altogether?

Grand Lord Vito

June 10th, 2004, 04:07 PM

JLS I dont know about everybody else but it looks great, go ahead and release it.

Although I would take another look at the Psychic Race, they were tooo powerful as is. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

JLS

June 11th, 2004, 12:24 PM

Thanks GLV - AIC still needs a little more testing. General consensus is that the small 1kt bracer is a wash, do not expect it to be in the release. The starting 5kt bracer will be 20 then with a 5 structure increase from each armor level. This should yield some protection against Armor Skipping races and the Torpedoes launched from Fighters. Another thing that is great about SJ�s Armor - it can give a good deal of protection and with out totally nullifying (skip armor) completely.

I understood your concerns and we are revising the v4.11 Psychic Trait for less advantages when playing multiplayer.

Grand Lord Vito

June 14th, 2004, 08:41 PM

I didnt think ot the Torpedoes, good point.

So how bout it, where is AIC 5.00? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

JLS

June 14th, 2004, 09:44 PM

Soon.

I am working with QB on the Psychic trait rebalance and with Oleg on some late game AI advantages.

JLS

June 18th, 2004, 07:39 PM

================================================== =======
Version History for AI Campaign v4.191 ~ June 18, 2004
================================================== =======

Updated for SPACE EMPIRES IV newest Version ~(v1.91)

CONCEPTUAL:
AI Players Economic and Infrastructure delayed.
AI Balance adjusted to be little more advantages towards the Human Players.
Added Base Space Yards for MultiPlayer option at an increased rate.

COMPONENTS:
Removed Limits on most Armor ~ PTF
Added a smaller Version of Leaky Armor ~ SJ
Revised Psychic Racial Trait ~ QB

RACEs:
FRACTALIAN RACE STYLE ~ Ed Kolis
Neutral Images from Custom Race Portraits at jdtaylor.home.mindspring.com

TECH:
Shuffled and added a few.

VEHICALS:
Lowered Starliner Costs 40 to 60% ~ Oleg

QUAD MAPs:
New Default {Starter map} - Based on Fyrons Balanced Quad map.

NOTES:
Many tweaks and a few surprises

[ June 18, 2004, 19:54: Message edited by: JLS ]

Grand Lord Vito

June 19th, 2004, 12:32 AM

Finely the next AIC is out. I thought we were going to have another LAN Imperialism 2 this weekend.

Ed Kolis

June 19th, 2004, 02:03 AM

I finally got around to playing AIC for the first time, now that my Fractalian race is in (too bad their shipset isn't http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif ) and now I have some...

COMMENTS

OF

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

The Faith Shrine -20 says it only reduces chance of bad events by 15%

The Colonial Settlement uses kT of resources to mean 1000 units for the storage ability and 1 unit for the imperial trade ability!

The starliner and freighter portraits are TOO BIG!

Where is this "small transport mount" referenced in certain components (like Space Yard Ship)?

How about adding in the Ultimate Strategies mod?

How about using the fighter engine pics for the efficient engines so we can tell them apart?

Why don't Supply Compartments and Cargo Compartments count as cargo space?

Intelligence Sabotage 2 has the same tech req as Intelligence Sabotage 1... and why don't intel projects use roman numerals?

JLS

June 19th, 2004, 03:06 AM

Originally posted by Ed Kolis:

COMMENTS
OF
DOOM!!!!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Typo on the Faith Shrine description, fixed at 20%

Agreed, I will recheck the KT standardization of descriptions.

I have yet to have the time to make ALL the Starliners and other non-se4 ships Images that closely resemble each race - so I offered what I had. I will probably do this for se5 AIC.

A reference for Stellar manipulation mounts for those that would fit on a Transport.
However, I will also make the reference for the Space Yard Ship, thanks.

Not all Players want USM pre-installed - I am told "to many choices and their personal Srats will be way down the bottom of the list", I did offer the Interceptor strategy as requested by a few players, plus in the (design example existing Empire choice) are some examples for new AIC players on some ships designs and empire strategies that are specific to AIC.

AI Campaign fighters do not have the efficient engine component, they are designed for Tactical or Strategic movement and for optional afterburners.

I did not want the small Supply Compartments to contribute to the overall cargo of a Transport hull Tankers, it must use the 20kt (Supply Storage component) value to fill the Hulls quota.

Thanks, I will revisit the AIC Psychic Intel file and set Sabotage 2 req.

= = = = = = = == = = =
Good stuff Ed, thanks http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ June 19, 2004, 03:03: Message edited by: JLS ]

Ed Kolis

June 19th, 2004, 04:14 AM

Originally posted by JLS:
Typo on the Faith Shrine description, fixed at 20%
I have yet to have the time to make ALL the Starliners and other non-se4 ships Images that closely resemble each race - so I offered what I had. I will probably do this for se5 AIC.
Why not just scale them down to 128x128? I just meant the bitmaps were too big, not the ships themselves http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

AI Campaign fighters do not have the efficient engine component, they are designed for Tactical or Strategic movement and for optional afterburners.
No, I just mean, use the fighter engine *pictures* for the efficient engines, since those pics are unused on ships, to differnetiate the two types of ship engines. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

I did not want the small Supply Compartments to contribute to the overall cargo of a Transport hull Tankers, it must use the 20kt (Supply Storage component) value to fill the Hulls quota.What about the smaller cargo containers?

JLS

June 19th, 2004, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by Ed Kolis:

Why not just scale them down to 128x128? I just meant the bitmaps were too big, not the ships themselves
Understood, I have used these Starliners for a few years and like the way these look, however... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

A few players have (now) http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif offered some new Starliner Pics that they use in their AIC game - we will release them soon.

As I said the best way to do this is to take a snap shot of an Abbidon (image style) class ship for example� and then reshape it a bit and reclassify that new hull pic to the needed AIC class; then move onto the next race, etc�
as I said we do have are priorities http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif and this will take time - and I/we, will get to it.

No, I just mean, use the fighter engine *pictures* for the efficient engines, since those pics are unused on ships, to differnetiate the two types of ship engines.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding you.

One fighter engine serves the purpose of both AIC Tactical and Strategic movement, there is no need for extra pics.
With AIC, preventing a fighter from sector movement is done best in the fighter HULL http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
In this way the AIC Tactical Fighter will only move, and then with NO attack options possible - when it is very low on fuel http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Strategic Fighter hull has the sector movement that is in relationship to its hull size, as such the larger AIC Strategic Fighters will have less movement; Hence are less likely to intercept an Enemy fleet when large Fighters are launched from your Colony http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

What about the smaller cargo containers?
Ed, the Smaller Cargo Containers do have Cargo ability (12 and 25 respectively).

[ June 19, 2004, 16:40: Message edited by: JLS ]

Ed Kolis

June 19th, 2004, 06:54 PM

Originally posted by JLS:
Perhaps I am misunderstanding you.
Yes, you are. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif
I'm not talking about fighters at all - I'm talking about efficient engines. I'm just suggesting they use the same PICTURE that fighter engines do (at least stock fighter engines - I've never built fighters in AIC), so we can tell them apart from regular engines just by glancing at a design http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Ed, the Smaller Cargo Containers do have Cargo ability (12 and 25 respectively). Oh. DUH! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Grand Lord Vito

June 19th, 2004, 08:27 PM

I also have some Star Liner pics for AIC, I will mail them to you.

FYI, the LAN group loves the upgrade and we decided to play tomorrow also instead of waiting until next Saturday.

[ June 19, 2004, 19:43: Message edited by: Grand Lord Vito ]

Grand Lord Vito

June 19th, 2004, 08:44 PM

I LIKE EDs suggestion JLS http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif
He is talking about them for the ship engines you dummy http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Fyron

June 19th, 2004, 09:20 PM

JLS, the starliner pictures are 200 by 200 pixels. This is wrong. They need to be 128 by 128. It is a waste of file space.

Also, there is no need to include the same images in every race folder. The Race Generic folder is a far, far better place to put the generic Starliner images. Again, this is a big waste of space.

[ June 19, 2004, 20:24: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

JLS

June 20th, 2004, 01:51 AM

Good point Fyron.

Perhaps its time now to do the individual required hull class Images for each se4 race, so this space would not be wasted http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

JLS

June 20th, 2004, 01:55 AM

Sorry for the misunderstanding about efficient engines, Ed - this is a CAPITAL suggestion and consider it done http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ June 20, 2004, 01:04: Message edited by: JLS ]

QBrigid

June 20th, 2004, 05:30 AM

Does FQM have the Rock Planets close to the sun followed by GAS and ICE?

I read Captain Kwoks post and I think this would be neat and very realistic.

[ June 20, 2004, 04:35: Message edited by: QBrigid ]

QBrigid

June 20th, 2004, 05:32 AM

Originally posted by JLS:
Originally posted by Ed Kolis:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />
Why not just scale them down to 128x128? I just meant the bitmaps were too big, not the ships themselves
Understood, I have used these Starliners for a few years and like the way these look, however... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

A few players have (now) http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif offered some new Starliner Pics that they use in their AIC game - we will release them soon.

As I said the best way to do this is to take a snap shot of an Abbidon (image style) class ship for example� and then reshape it a bit and reclassify that new hull pic to the needed AIC class; then move onto the next race, etc�
<hr /></blockquote>I would like to help with the new AIC Ship sets http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif and I also have some starliner pics for you.

[ June 20, 2004, 04:57: Message edited by: QBrigid ]

Fyron

June 20th, 2004, 06:55 PM

Originally posted by QBrigid:
Does FQM have the Rock Planets close to the sun followed by GAS and ICE? No.

Captain Kwok

June 20th, 2004, 10:10 PM

Fyron likes to keep things completely random.

I like random too, but mixed in with a bit of realistic items, as long as you don't hurt game play.

The system types I've designed so far for Space Food Empires are generally similar to our type of solar system. You have rock-based planets occupying the inner rings (2-3, rarely 4), with a few ice-based planets in the middle rings (rarely 3, usually 4), and Gas Giants in the outer rings (sometimes 4, mostly 5-7), and again a few ice-based planets in the fringes. Moons are also divided between ice and rock, with ice being more prevalent to make up any shortages.

However, I always throw in a few oddball systems to mix things up. Sometimes I'll have a big gas giant planet near the star as we tend to find in extra solar systems today. Of course, binary and trinary systems are free for alls and I almost always use random types all the way here.

A key consideration is to make sure you try and keep at least 2 of the entries "Any" to get an extraordinary amount of variety. The only time I don't follow that is when I have planets with moons, I make sure the planet will always be larger than the moon.

I like having asteroids too, but not nearly as much as some quadrants in FQM. I usually make partially filled asteroid belts in rings that have few planets. Perhaps I do this to simulate pulverized planets or perhaps I do it because a planet just failed to form there. Most of my asteroids are found in rings 3 and 4, but not always.

I think in Space Food Empires, I've made 35 single star system types alone ranging from 3-10 planets each under this system. Throw in another 10 system types for binary, and 5 more for trinary - and that's a lot of systems that have planets. In a large galaxy, you might only get 3 or 4 of the same system types.

JLS

June 21st, 2004, 01:52 AM

Thanks for the Ship sets guys.
The TDM RAGE sml, med and large Transports was by far the most favored Starliner pics.

If possible, please attach the sets designer and/or where you received them, if they are to be placed in the AIC image folder, in this way - the proper permissions and credit is issued.
- - -

Trooper has offered AIC the use of his STARSHIP set and this will make a fine Generic set for all the needed Hull classes, until the individual Space Empires race images are completed.

Thanks Trooper - this is an outstanding image set http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

= = = = =
Originally posted by QBrigid:
Does FQM have the Rock Planets close to the sun followed by GAS and ICE?

I read Captain Kwoks post and I think this would be neat and very realistic. I am unsure of Fyrons directions for his FQM mod (As a courtesy, perhaps you should PM him and ask). Agreed, the Captains Solar System layout plan - is indeed very realistic.
- - -
Thank you QB, I can use the help with the se4 sets. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ June 20, 2004, 15:16: Message edited by: JLS ]

QBrigid

June 21st, 2004, 02:26 PM

Originally posted by Captain Kwok:

A key consideration is to make sure you try and keep at least 2 of the entries "Any" to get an extraordinary amount of variety. The only time I don't follow that is when I have planets with moons, I make sure the planet will always be larger than the moon.

I like having asteroids too, but not nearly as much as some quadrants in FQM. I usually make partially filled asteroid belts in rings that have few planets. Perhaps I do this to simulate pulverized planets or perhaps I do it because a planet just failed to form there. Most of my asteroids are found in rings 3 and 4, but not always.

I think in Space Food Empires, I've made 35 single star system types alone ranging from 3-10 planets each under this system. Throw in another 10 system types for binary, and 5 more for trinary - and that's a lot of systems that have planets. In a large galaxy, you might only get 3 or 4 of the same system types. JLS you should keep the FQM for the Players and follow Captain Kwoks lead and add more new maps that was described.

QBrigid

June 21st, 2004, 02:31 PM

Thanks, I will revisit the AIC Psychic Intel file and set Sabotage 2 req.
JLS noticed you stopped the AI from using the intel project change orders?

solops

June 21st, 2004, 02:49 PM

The download for 4.191 does not work for me. Anyone else having problems?

QBrigid

June 21st, 2004, 02:53 PM

It works fine for me. I am over 150 turns in a no warps game so far so great http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

What is happening to your game?

JLS

June 21st, 2004, 04:04 PM

Originally posted by solops:
The download for 4.191 does not work for me. Anyone else having problems? Thanks Solops, I am checking into it.
Sorry for any inconvenience.

JLS

[ June 21, 2004, 15:06: Message edited by: JLS ]

JLS

June 21st, 2004, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by QBrigid:
noticed you stopped the AI from using the intel project change orders?
Yes.
It did the AI little good and it was annoying having to reroute my ships when I was hit.

Human Players can use the project still http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
- - -

JLS you should keep the FQM for the Players and follow Captain Kwoks lead and add more new maps that was described.
Absolutely, FQM stays - no one needs me to post that FQM offers an aspect to se4 of both realism and the ability for players to enjoy Astro Mining on a grand scale.

= = =
QB, I understand you do not like many Asteroids in your game; however, other Players do.
Please. Choose a non-FQM map if you wish fewer Asteroids. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
For a not connected game I would suggest for you - the (Default Starter map, or any of the top Galaxies maps) http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

I would be pleased to contact the Captain on the feasibility of his Solar System layouts to be used with AIC; although, perhaps it would be best to wait until he has finished his mod. Would you not agree?

[ June 21, 2004, 15:59: Message edited by: JLS ]

solops

June 21st, 2004, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by JLS:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by solops:
The download for 4.191 does not work for me. Anyone else having problems? Thanks Solops, I am checking into it.
Sorry for any inconvenience.

JLS <hr /></blockquote>I finally got the download via the link at Spacempires.net rather than the one in this thread.

Wierd.

JLS

June 21st, 2004, 05:17 PM

I hope you completed the DownLoad http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
I just NOW - shut down the site http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

Fyron

June 21st, 2004, 06:48 PM

QB, I understand you do not like many Asteroids in your game; however, other Players do.
Please. Choose a non-FQM map if you wish fewer Asteroids. [Smile] Did you not include the Mid-life No AST quadrants? If you did, players can play on those. There are very few systems in such maps with large numbers of asteroids (most have 2).

Grand Lord Vito

June 21st, 2004, 08:07 PM

Fyron.
I think JLS kept the standard maps and original AIC maps and they have only one or two asteroids. And used only your FQM asteroid circle, the Ancients and the dangerous warp points.

I usualy play Finite and I get the most out your FQM http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

JLS suggested those maps to QB because playing a not connected game in AIC. The Cluster and the Spiral maps play better in no warp because the systems tend to be alot closer and the JLS starts the players out earlier then stock se4 with a 4LY warp opener and this will catch most adjacent systems within a Cluster http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif but not enough to get to another Cluster. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif You need to research more SM to do that.

But the other maps and the standard se4 warp openers are the same as stock but the warp openers are cheaper.

[ June 21, 2004, 19:33: Message edited by: Grand Lord Vito ]

Grand Lord Vito

June 21st, 2004, 08:31 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Also, there is no need to include the same images in every race folder. The Race Generic folder is a far, far better place to put the generic Starliner images. Again, this is a big waste of space. JLS I assume you know that the vehicles will use the alternate image before the generic folder.
Will this be a problem.

You saved a lot of space by decreasing the �footprint� of all se4 data files from that misc stuff, I don�t see where a meg or two would be a big deal http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

JLS

June 21st, 2004, 09:12 PM

If I rename the Primary and the Alternate Image to something that the file does not have - it will go to the Generic Folder. This is only an operations issue and not a technical one.

This was done as is - to help the newbies that do not know how the se4 files work and yet to have all the needed images there and waiting. Without requiring AIC Players with existing AIC structured sets to rename their vehicles. Operationally this is the best option

Technically-Fyron is the far best option.

.Logistically - having a second download of the optional Hull images for new players is another option, but this will mean they will have another download anyway, so is this really operationally sound?

Anyway one thing is for sure and that is Troopers ship set will replace all the images I provided.

Once the needed se4 race vehical images are done, this will be all moot http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

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

[ June 21, 2004, 20:18: Message edited by: JLS ]

Fyron

June 21st, 2004, 09:15 PM

Umm... you do not need to rename any files (other than Generic prefix, of course, which does not affect the vehicle size file in any way). Just put a (fixed size) copy of each starliner hull in the Race Generic folder and delete all of them that are the same image from each race folder.

JLS

June 21st, 2004, 09:32 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Umm... you do not need to rename any files (other than Generic prefix, of course, which does not affect the vehicle size file in any way). Just put a (fixed size) copy of each starliner hull in the Race Generic folder and delete all of them that are the same image from each race folder. Fryon, I may be mistaken but I believe the game checks for an alternate Image if the Primary is not in that Race Folder, before it goes to the Generic Folder looking for a vehicle-so inthis case it will pick that races small transport and not waist its time going to the Generic folder even just to look and see.

= = = =

Reference:

Name := Freighter
Short Name := Starliner
Description := A hull designed to transport cargo or large numbers of people and their belongings, Starliner Module is recommended for the transport of Population.
Code := SL
Primary Bitmap Name := Starliner (default (1) Not in race folder
Alternate Bitmap Name := TransportSmall (2) In race folder so game will take this image http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Then it will check the MAIN se4 Pictures folder and if still not available - it will then go to the Generic Folder Last.

=======
If I rename bothe Primary and the Alternate to Freighter it will then check the Generick only after the above search is satisfied http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ June 21, 2004, 20:42: Message edited by: JLS ]

Fyron

June 21st, 2004, 09:42 PM

Ok. So change the alternate bitmap to use the starliner images. Since they will be in the Race Generic folder, no need to worry about it.

JLS

June 21st, 2004, 09:52 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Ok. So change the alternate bitmap to use the starliner images. Since they will be in the Race Generic folder, no need to worry about it. Yes what you say is an option; however, the new and permenat images will not take that long to complete and will just overwrite what is there and the players will not have to worry about any extra files that would have been located in the Generic folder.

As it is may be the best - in the overall http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ June 21, 2004, 22:23: Message edited by: JLS ]

JLS

June 23rd, 2004, 03:27 PM

Originally posted by QBrigid:
JLS would you like me to resize that original AIC Star Liner? It is not my original, so please do not.
= = =

Actually QB, if you could finish all the se4 scouts and get them to me - I think we will have an overall compromise for the Generic file http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Your se4 images are very good, thank you http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Fyron

June 23rd, 2004, 05:09 PM

Originally posted by JLS:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by QBrigid:
JLS would you like me to resize that original AIC Star Liner? It is not my original, so please do not.<hr /></blockquote>What does that have to do with anything? I am sure that whomever made them would not mind them being fixed for use in the mod.

Originally posted by QBrigid:
Fyron I really like your Balanced map that JLS used for the AIC default Starter. It plays awesome in a not connected game http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ June 23, 2004, 16:10: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

oleg

June 23rd, 2004, 09:26 PM

I like to play with MP* option and also like Temporal race but MP base space yard II makes temporal less atractive. May be to reduce it rate to balance races set up for games with MP* ?

JLS

June 23rd, 2004, 10:57 PM

Good question Oleg, what do you think?

The Temporal increase to their BSY may effect a LAN MP* game balance. GLV played a LAN game Last weekend; however I am still waiting for the hard data.

We can tack on 300 or 400 more RADS to the Temporal BSY II - more of an increase may mean its own MP Temporal BSY components, or are you suggesting lowering the new MP yard rates?

[ June 23, 2004, 22:07: Message edited by: JLS ]

oleg

June 23rd, 2004, 11:06 PM

I suggest to simply low MP* yard rates. MP* got resources production on steroids, if you want more ships, build more baseyard bases, stupid http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Seriously though, some bonus is OK but certainly below temporal spaceyards !

[ June 23, 2004, 22:09: Message edited by: oleg ]

JLS

June 23rd, 2004, 11:18 PM

As you recall, before the Multiplayer BYS's. v4.11 had:

Base Space Yard IV was almost equal to the Temporal Base Space Yard III

With the Base Space Yard V (2000 rate) having the exact same as v4.11 and this has always been about 25% more then Temporal III http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Perhaps 400 more RADs to Temporal Base Space Yard II for now - until we have a few more LAN tests behind us.

[ June 23, 2004, 22:25: Message edited by: JLS ]

QBrigid

June 24th, 2004, 01:16 AM

JLS would you like me to resize that original AIC Star Liner?

QBrigid

June 24th, 2004, 01:21 AM

Originally posted by Grand Lord Vito:
JLS suggested those maps to QB because playing a not connected game in AIC. The Cluster and the Spiral maps play better in no warp because the systems tend to be alot closer and the JLS starts the players out earlier then stock se4 with a 4LY warp opener and this will catch most adjacent systems within a Cluster http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif but not enough to get to another Cluster. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif You need to research more SM to do that.

But the other maps and the standard se4 warp openers are the same as stock but the warp openers are cheaper. Fyron I really like your Balanced map that JLS used for the AIC default Starter. It plays awesome in a not connected game http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

GLV the warp openers come much sooner in AIC and are way cheaper.

JLS

June 24th, 2004, 10:30 PM

AIC WEB SITE back on line
=======================
New Ship Set Download contains:

NEW Generic Ships Set designed by ~ Trooper.
Se4 Hull Images by ~ QBrigid
Efficient Engine Images ~ Ed Kolis
More AI and other tweaks.
Lowered the cost of the basic Extraction Facilities - for a faster build and a somewhat quicker upgrade
Includes higher yield and less cost (Resource Extraction tech 4-9) Planet and System Resource Facilities.
Standard Repair Bays: repair components at se4 default. 3-5-8 and the MP* remains at 12

[ June 25, 2004, 13:31: Message edited by: JLS ]

Grand Lord Vito

June 25th, 2004, 06:19 PM

Troopers ships are Awesome, the Freighter and the Starliners are a perfect fit for AIC.
QB all the extra new se4 race ship pics are http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

Last weekend we played almost a150 turns in our LAN game. We played with the MP*, OS, SF and O2 option that gives Multiplayer speed, no need for starliners, Strategic Fighters and plenty of resources.
A few new guys had some heavy MP-handicapping points.
I�ll you know about the Temporal BSY but I am all for an extra 300 or 400 rads http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

oleg

June 26th, 2004, 06:19 PM

I normally play with MP* as the only bonus trait. It is very difficult to compete with low bonus AI in "not all points connected" setup. My favorite quadrant is "strands". It produces many small fragments of random geometry and size.

JLS

June 26th, 2004, 11:08 PM

I also like to play AIC NO-WARP and sometimes even a Finite game with no AI bonus.

Agreed Oleg, the Srands Map is a fine No-Warp map.
Thanks for the tip - I will give a go with the MP* Option http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

QBrigid

June 27th, 2004, 01:35 AM

Troopers ships are Awesome, the Freighter and the Starliners are a perfect fit for AIC. Absolutly!!! they are great http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

I LOVE THIS MOD http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif
I use the AIC O1* and the 02* for the free start trait options in not connected games this way there is plenty of research and resources http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
But I like Star Liners and lots of them, so I leave OS* option off.
Do you guys take any of the evil AI races out of the Race folder and put them in the {races not used folder}? I remove all the violent ones, this way there is no evil races when I start a new random game http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif
I always play not connected games with AI Bonus of NONE, keeps the AIC game relaxing http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

JLS whats next for AIC?

[ June 26, 2004, 12:47: Message edited by: QBrigid ]

Grand Lord Vito

June 27th, 2004, 05:42 PM

I lost the LAN game. I sided against with the new player against the AI and he back stabbed me and purged my home system. That�s what I get for allying with a stranger http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif

The AIC MP* option is great the game really moves along at a fast pace and you only need 1 or 2 mp base space yards early in the game http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Did you know the AI will place mines in your systems http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

[ June 27, 2004, 16:44: Message edited by: Grand Lord Vito ]

JLS

June 27th, 2004, 11:58 PM

Always be sure of those that enter your house GLV.
When gaming it is rare to have the total Ally - totally.

The increased yard rates is a sword that cuts both ways, you still need the materials available to sustain a production increase http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
A good example of this is the se4 Temporal Yards.

JLS

June 30th, 2004, 03:25 PM

I really did not like the AIC MP* Options for the NO-WARP solitaire game I just played against AI bonus of NONE. I was able to out tech them with the MP* Research facilities; perhaps, if the AI was LOW bonus then it may have been more of a challenge.

Grand Lord Vito

July 3rd, 2004, 01:39 AM

Originally posted by JLS:
=======================
New Ship Set Download contains:

NEW Generic Ships Set designed by ~ Trooper.
Se4 Hull Images by ~ QBrigid
Efficient Engine Images ~ Ed Kolis
More AI and other tweaks.
Lowered the cost of the basic Extraction Facilities - for a faster build and a somewhat quicker upgrade
Includes higher yield and less cost (Resource Extraction tech 4-9) Planet and System Resource Facilities.
Standard Repair Bays: repair components at se4 default. 3-5-8 and the MP* remains at 12 We like the decreased cost in building the resources facilities in AIC v4.191A but not everybody in my LAN group wants to go into planetary engineering or astroid mining for that matter. They recommend raising the higher level Mining Facilities to produce more.

Mining III 600
Mining Complex 750
The MultiPlayer Megaplex at 1200 total resources generated per turn http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
RADS and Orgainics are ok.

Raise research a hair on the Agrarian and Mining Comunities.

With the changes that you made in the Psychic Intel you can change the roman numerals back.

Other then this we all think the MOD is great and I start a new LAN AIC game in the mourning http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

JLS

July 3rd, 2004, 03:02 AM

Give them what they want and be sure all the players files are exactly the same. Let me know in a few weeks how you make out - choose your allies well this time http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

We will also test the recommendations here.
The Intel Facility numerals are all set, thanks for the reminder http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

oleg

July 3rd, 2004, 05:07 PM

Two points:

Dogscoff' site has Neostandard images for stock races. Why pack generic pictures into every race folder. Use the already existing race specific pictures ! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

I was fighting Terran and had a tough time till Terrans research Ionic pulse misiles. They are a joke !! Shield stop engine destroing weapons and the IPM staistics are abysmall. Please, restore rate 3 for firing. Heck, make it 2 or beef up other statistics like seeker resistance or damage.

JLS

July 3rd, 2004, 08:23 PM

I do not believe Neostandard has Scouts for all the se4 races, and at this point that is all the non-generic images AIC needs; also, at this time with regards to AIC hulls - there is no need for all the other very fine Images that Neostandard provides.
> dogscoffs Neostandard expansion site < (http://www.dogscoff.co.uk/neostandexpansion.htm)

- - -

Actually, the Terrans do not research the Ionic missile until well after Baseships. And then it is only one IPM for Terran Destroyer or its KA Frigate

Thanks Oleg, I still need to refresh some of the AI Players Designs and Research files - I will make the Terrans and Sergetti first on the list - and take a hard look at the effectiveness of their overloading weapons.

[ July 03, 2004, 20:37: Message edited by: JLS ]

oleg

July 3rd, 2004, 10:02 PM

True, but some images can be directly transfered to AIC. For example tiny transport -> starliner; tiny carrier -> escort carrier.

However, my major greep is that I had Neostandard installed in SEIV root directory and then suddenly new AIC images overwrite them http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

JLS

July 3rd, 2004, 11:02 PM

Originally posted by oleg:
True, but some images can be directly transfered to AIC. For example tiny transport -> starliner; tiny carrier -> escort carrier.

However, my major greep is that I had Neostandard installed in SEIV root directory and then suddenly new AIC images overwrite them http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif - - -

AIC DOES NOT OR HAS EVER, OVERWRITEN ANY SEIV ROOT DIRECTORY WITH IMAGES, DATA OR ANY FOLDER TYPE - OTHER THEN WHAT IS PLACED IN THE AICAMPAIGN MOD FOLDER (.)

Please revisit your statement, Oleg. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

- - - - - -

AIC will give the optional choice for the AIC PATH file - as with many other MODS.

HOW THIS IS DONE

> The AIC Vehicle data file - Is programmed as such: to direct se4 to load only AIC Images found throughout your AIC Folders and/or the se4 stock Images http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

JLS

=================================================
REFERENCE - AIC Vehicle data file

Name := Resupply Space Station
Short Name := Supply Space Station
Description := Deep space supply station, which will resupply ships when fleeted.
Code := RSS
Primary Bitmap Name := ResupplyStation (Assess the AIC Pictures\Generic Folder http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
Alternate Bitmap Name := ResupplyStation
Ability 1 Descr := Deep space supply station, which will resupply ships when fleeted.
Ability 2 Descr := Fuel Capacity 20000kt. Auto refueling is 200kt minimum per month in most Systems.
Ability 3 Descr := Fleeting with large Tankers and Stellar Harnessing Panels will aid in replenishments.
Ability 4 Descr := Immobility and large proportion of supply storage space makes this Resupply Station a poor platform for weapons.
Ability 5 Descr := Large proportion of cargo space decreases maintenance cost.

~~

Name := Orbital Resource Station
Short Name := Resource Space Station
Description := Resource extraction Station will extract resources automatically at those coordinates each month when built.
Code := ORS
Primary Bitmap Name := ResourceStation
Alternate Bitmap Name := ResourceStation
Ability 1 Descr := Automatically Mines 900 minerals.
Ability 2 Descr := Automatically Extracts 600 radioactives.
Ability 3 Descr := Automatically Recovers 300 organics.
Ability 4 Descr := Orbital Resource Station has sufficient room for an additional extraction component.
Ability 5 Descr := Fuel Capacity 1000kt. Auto refueling is 20kt minimum per month in most Systems.
Ability 6 Descr := Only one Vehicle can extract the resources from Asteroids or non-colonized Planets and its moons each month.
Ability 7 Descr := Automated extraction components contribute to the low maintenance of this station.
Ability 8 Descr := Immobility makes this Orbital Resource Station a poor platform for weapons.

[ July 04, 2004, 01:20: Message edited by: JLS ]

JLS

July 3rd, 2004, 11:18 PM

I have received permission form Dogscoff and many Ship Set designers to include that of AST, TDM and others for the use of some of their Images and in total - they have all agreed http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
Now its just a matter of putting the package together.

- - -

Players that wish alternative Star liner and AIC Images and that may be unable to perform the transfer themselfs - there will be an AIC (optional EXTRAS) Image pack out soon.
This will include a wide variety of Freighter, Fast Colonizer, Starliner, Resource Station, Resupply Station and Infantry choices - some Neo-Standard, TDM Images and from many other designers as well http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

As with all AIC downloaded extras this will be placed in your:
Space Empires IV Gold\AICampaign\Extras Folder

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

[ July 04, 2004, 00:31: Message edited by: JLS ]

QBrigid

July 4th, 2004, 03:35 AM

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif
Oleg you hurt me so. You don't like my Scouts http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

QBrigid

July 4th, 2004, 03:41 AM

Originally posted by Grand Lord Vito:
We like the decreased cost in building the resources facilities in AIC v4.191A but not everybody in my LAN group wants to go into planetary engineering or astroid mining for that matter. They recommend raising the higher level Mining Facilities to produce more.

Mining III 600
Mining Complex 750
The MultiPlayer Megaplex at 1200 total resources generated per turn http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
RADS and Orgainics are ok.

GLV the AIC starting option O2 does the same thing by increasing all your (Human Players) Empires resource Facilities production http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

QBrigid

July 4th, 2004, 03:54 AM

Originally posted by JLS:
Granted the Praetorians were nice enough to replace the Novian Star, at Sindarious - do not expect them to clear the two Nebulas in your South easter Cluster- Perhaps if you Clear them thru SM they will be kind enough to create a star for you in those System as well.
Now, once that is done; you will need Grave Plates and Cables along with a Ring World Generator What I do is GIFT the Praetorians, Eee and the Tolytans the chart of the system I want them to Stellar Manipulate and they usually do http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

AIC always have had low costing Ring and Sphere World Components and they come out earler then stock se4. So GLV whats stoping you, make a few http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

oleg

July 4th, 2004, 09:28 AM

Originally posted by QBrigid:
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif
Oleg you hurt me so. You don't like my Scouts http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif No ! I just want to have more http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

oleg

July 4th, 2004, 09:37 AM

Originally posted by JLS:

Please revisit your statement, Oleg. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

- - - - - -

. Yes, I was unclear. Sorry http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif What I meant is before AIC used neostandard images from the root folder but now it loads pictures from AIC/races folder. i had to go purge all of them to restore race-specific pictures.

Of course any AIC release should put pictures into its own directory.

JLS

July 4th, 2004, 02:12 PM

Originally posted by QBrigid:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Grand Lord Vito:
They recommend raising the higher level Mining Facilities to produce more.

Mining III 600
Mining Complex 750
The MultiPlayer Megaplex at 1200 total resources generated per turn http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
RADS and Orgainics are ok.

GLV the AIC starting option O2 does the same thing by increasing all your (Human Players) Empires resource Facilities production <hr /></blockquote>- - -
QB, what you say is true. We are seriously considering raising the Mining Facility productions at the higher levels, this will have many effects against the AI and will boost the Human Players potential to have another Attack Fleet in the (early mid game) with out the need of Planetary Engineering and only the slightest of need for Asteroid Mining.

The key to make this feasible: will be the integrity of the AI Players at higher bonus to preserve a many multi Human Players game against a few AI Players. With a few more se4 v1.191 AI tweaks, we will achieve this and have a smoother Extraction transition throughout the levels.
In addition, the AIC AI Players growth - will be further lowered in the AI Bonus of None and LOW - this will make it easier for the transitional competition level for NEW AIC Human Players from AI Bonus of NONE to LOW

AIC starting option of (O2) Resource benefits for Human Players will still be available that will increase yet further any available resource exploitations.

In addition to all increases yeilded from the standard Planet and System Resource modifications Facilities, when built http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

= = = = = = = = = =
REFERENCE
We are at this stage in testing and it plays very well:

Name := Mining Expedition
Description := Small expedition that mines surface minerals from this planet.
Facility Group := Resource Extraction
Cost Minerals := 1000
Cost Organics := 100
Cost Radioactives := 50
Tech Area Req 1 := Minerals Extraction
Tech Level Req 1 := 1
Ability 1 Descr := Mines 350 minerals each turn.

Name := Mining Settlement
Description := Planet processor that mines minerals from deep within this planet.
Facility Group := Resource Extraction
Facility Family := 1
Cost Minerals := 1200
Cost Organics := 300
Cost Radioactives := 150
Tech Area Req 1 := Minerals Extraction
Tech Level Req 1 := 2
Ability 1 Descr := Mines 450 minerals (up 50)

Name := Mining Colony
Description := Large scale Planet processors which mines minerals from the deepest layers.
Facility Group := Resource Extraction
Cost Minerals := 1400
Cost Organics := 466
Cost Radioactives := 233
Tech Area Req 1 := Minerals Extraction
Tech Level Req 1 := 3
Ability 1 Descr := Mines 600 minerals each turn. (up 100)

Name := Mining Complex
Description := Massive scale Planet processors which mines minerals from the deepest layers.
Facility Group := Resource Extraction
Pic Num := 94
Cost Minerals := 1800
Cost Organics := 900
Cost Radioactives := 450
Number of Tech Req := 4
Tech Area Req 1 := Minerals Extraction
Tech Level Req 1 := 4
Tech Area Req 2 := Construction
Tech Level Req 2 := 1
Tech Area Req 3 := Industry
Tech Level Req 3 := 3
Ability 1 Descr := Mines 800 minerals each turn. (up 150)

Name := Mining Megaplex mp
Description := Massive scale Planet processors which mines minerals from the deepest layers.
Facility Group := Resource Extraction
Cost Minerals := 2300
Cost Organics := 1150
Cost Radioactives := 575
Number of Tech Req := 5
Tech Area Req 1 := Multiplay
Tech Level Req 1 := 1
Tech Area Req 2 := Construction
Tech Level Req 2 := 1
Tech Area Req 3 := Industry
Tech Level Req 3 := 4
Tech Area Req 4 := Minerals Extraction
Tech Level Req 4 := 5
Ability 1 Descr := Mines 1200 minerals each turn. (up 200 and then again; perhaps even more for MP* http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif )

When AIC option O2 is chosen = then add about 25 percent increase again over the above core values...

[ July 04, 2004, 16:17: Message edited by: JLS ]

JLS

July 5th, 2004, 01:29 AM

Understood http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
It was felt that this would be an operational inconvenience for the AI Campaigners; however in the overall, it does fulfill the goal to assist new players to AIC that are unable at this time to rename and transfer images, and still have Generic Ship Images to Identify their Empires hulls. Also to add, the AI opponents with scouts that now look like Scouts and not Escorts - a point that was raised by some new players http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Eventually this all will be tied together with any available NeoStandards and other Ship Sets; also with optional downloads as mentioned in the previous Posts.

Grand Lord Vito

July 5th, 2004, 03:12 PM

My vote is more minerals for the Multiplayer MP* option. 1500 works for me http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

The AIC LAN Game is going along great and everybody is having a real good time. You got us all hooked again JLS http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

JLS

July 5th, 2004, 04:10 PM

MP* (1200) (1500) (10,000) - whatever highest Facility Mineral Gen number http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

As long as we all agree:
It is not important if we out produce the AI with the AIC Multiplayer options, as long as all have the amount of Ships/Bases and the extras in the game that we or as an indvidual - are indeed comfortable with http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

= = = =

We will also add to the AIC MP* multiplayer Option - individual level one thru 5 Mining Facilities and other Items - that will be AT or very near se4 default values.

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

[ July 05, 2004, 15:36: Message edited by: JLS ]

JLS

July 5th, 2004, 08:41 PM

Originally posted by oleg:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by QBrigid:
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif
Oleg you hurt me so. You don't like my Scouts http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif No ! I just want to have more http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif <hr /></blockquote>AGREED.

Qbrigid is supplying a full and completed inventory of the se4 RACE Hulls that Nonstandard does not supply and that are just AI Campaign Specific and this will be an OPTIONAL download for the Players that wish to use the se4 stock ship sets - with all the additional corresponding pics.

And as with all AIC downloads - this will be placed in its AICampaign/Pictures/Race Folder.

[ July 05, 2004, 19:50: Message edited by: JLS ]

dogscoff

July 6th, 2004, 10:13 AM

Just caught up with this thread. Hi everyone.

Qbrigid is supplying a full and completed inventory of the se4 RACE Hulls that Nonstandard does not supply and that are just AI Campaign Specific and this will be an OPTIONAL download for the Players that wish to use the se4 stock ship sets - with all the additional corresponding pics.
Qbigid, if it's OK with you I'd like to include any appropriate images you make into the neo-expansion pack. Your scouts, for instance, would make excellent additions. Can I include some of them in Version 1.40 of the neoexpansion? I will of course credit you as appropriate.

If you'd like to use any of the existing neo-expansion images then that's fine, as long as credit is given (Note that not all images in the neo-expansion are mine, so check the readmes before giving credit.) If you'd rather create a full set for yourself and duplicate more work, that's fine as well. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Paul1980au

July 6th, 2004, 10:15 AM

It would be good to see them updated and expanded as long as credit is given.

JLS

July 6th, 2004, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by dogscoff:
Qbigid, if it's OK with you I'd like to include any appropriate images you make into the neo-expansion pack. Your scouts, for instance, would make excellent additions. Can I include some of them in Version 1.40 of the neoexpansion? I will of course credit you as appropriate.

If you'd like to use any of the existing neo-expansion images then that's fine, as long as credit is given (Note that not all images in the neo-expansion are mine, so check the readmes before giving credit.) If you'd rather create a full set for yourself and duplicate more work, that's fine as well. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif QBrigid, please stand up and come forward.
You can not receive a more complementary praise then what Dogscoff has just offered http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Thank you again Dofscoff, the Neo Standard images will certainly ease the requirement that was necessary to complete the AIC Hull image inventory.

[ July 06, 2004, 14:13: Message edited by: JLS ]

gregebowman

July 6th, 2004, 10:34 PM

JLS,

I've been playing your 1.91a mod for the past couple of weeks. I like it, but there are some questions I have. First of all, why can't I get starliners to go more than 2 movements? No matter what type of engine I put in there, they don't go very fast. Transports and colony ships aren't much faster. I can get them to go 6 movements, but no more. Is there a way to boost the movement rate? Other than this, I'm enjoying the mod. I just wish I can get my populations to breed faster.

oleg

July 6th, 2004, 11:34 PM

JLS

July 7th, 2004, 05:50 AM

Originally posted by gregebowman:
JLS,

I've been playing your 1.91a mod for the past couple of weeks. I like it, but there are some questions I have. First of all, why can't I get starliners to go more than 2 movements? No matter what type of engine I put in there, they don't go very fast. Transports and colony ships aren't much faster. I can get them to go 6 movements, but no more. Is there a way to boost the movement rate? Other than this, I'm enjoying the mod. I just wish I can get my populations to breed faster. Thank you for your interest in the AIC http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Understood, the Freighters (AKA small Starliner) will always move at a speed of 2.

However the Starliner will move at a speed of (3) with Jacketed Engines. The Large Starliner will also move (3) with Quantum Engines

This speed for the Star Liners has been the favor - for most Players that like AIC StarLiners. Some Players also perfer AIC option OS* described below

~ You may add Propulsion Expert to increase all your designed movements and this may be accomplished for Free - with the MP Bonus points, that is located a little further down the Traits menu and just prior to the Strategic Fighters start option http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

- - -

To modify System Population growth; expediently, other then the basic means se4 offers thru Engineering etc.
~With AIC Medical Technology you may build System Hospitals and this will increase the Reproduction rate of that System. Off coarse there is also the Organic Race reproductive benefits as well.
- - - -

AIC offers the OS* starting trait option and this will increase your Population Reproductions dramatically thru out the coarse of your game and actually, the result will be less Starliners or even none. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

= = = = = = = = = = = =
Reference ~ AIC Cargo Class Hulls Options

Slow Freighters Will start you off with 899kt Cargo at the low cost 90m 18o 31r . This is a vast amount of hauling capability with the drawback of a speed at an average of 2 sectors per month.
You may replace the Basic Bridge for a Starliner Population Module to this Freighter Hull - raising this to 1000 Cargo spacing enough to carry a mass of population at a cost of 76m 63o 33r.

Starliner This is the most versatile Hull in the Cargo Hull Class. With a potential of 2000kt of Cargo space - this may be used as a mass Population mover and as Cargo Mover or have double the Ability of any one mentioned.
As a cargo Carrier (two Basic Bridges) it can pack 1798kt of space at a cost of 112r 35o 39r and will travel at a speed of 2. However this same Configuration with Jacketed Engines will cost you 197m 35o 46r and yield a speed of 3 sectors per month http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Also as a Cargo Carrier - If we remove the (basic Bridges) and install an automated Computer Pilot as Oleg suggests: we would achieve the same configurations and some free space for an added nich of supplies or more cargo at a cost of 83m 0o 58r at a speed of 2 and 175m 0o 66r speed 3 sectors per month and as Oleg points out the Computer Pilot will save Organics.

Largest of the Starliner Hulls This will haul a potential of 3000kt of Cargo and again add many available and at many cost versus mean options as with the medium type Starliner; however, with the vast size of this Hull to move more the 2 sectors per month players must achieve the research for Contra this vessel will require 4 installed. With the upgrade to Quantum Engines this Large Starliner will move at speed 3.

There are very many Combinations of Components to effect AIC Cargo Class Hulls profitability as your game develops and there is no one option that is hard and fast, it all depends on what you want to achieve at the time and towards the end.

- - - - -

Also to note: The Standard se4 Transport that we are all familiar with - will also serve as a Population Transport and will yield much greater speeds; However, this will also be at a price that again must be weighed for the actual priority of this need.

[ July 07, 2004, 09:11: Message edited by: JLS ]

gregebowman

July 7th, 2004, 05:38 PM

Originally posted by JLS:

To modify System Population growth; expediently, other then the basic means se4 offers thru Engineering etc.
~With AIC Medical Technology you may build System Hospitals and this will increase the Reproduction rate of that System. Off coarse there is also the Organic Race reproductive benefits as well.
- - - -

[ Hmm, I'm always slow to build up on my medical technicology. Right now, I have Bio Med II (?). I guess I'll have to research more medical now, if I want my population to grow. Thanks.

JLS

July 7th, 2004, 07:23 PM

I am testing another persons mod and I got the Names mixed (that mod had the System Hospital) http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/blush.gif

I am happy that you have the Facility. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
It has the 4 levels only.

= = = = = = = =
Reference

Name := Bio Med Facility
Description := Advanced medical center which cures the ill and helps prevent disease.
Facility Group := Population Support
Facility Family := 881
Roman Numeral := 0
Restrictions := None
Pic Num := 4
Cost Minerals := 2000
Cost Organics := 3000
Cost Radioactives := 1000
Number of Tech Req := 3
Tech Area Req 1 := Human Balance Tech
Tech Level Req 1 := 1
Tech Area Req 2 := Medical Technology
Tech Level Req 2 := 1
Tech Area Req 3 := Construction
Tech Level Req 3 := 1
Number of Abilities := 2
Ability 1 Descr := Populations in this system will reproduce 5% faster
Ability 2 Descr := Medical Research 50

Name := Bio Med Facility I
Description := Advanced medical center which cures the ill and helps prevent disease.
Facility Group := Population Support
Facility Family := 881
Roman Numeral := 1
Restrictions := None
Pic Num := 4
Cost Minerals := 2000
Cost Organics := 4000
Cost Radioactives := 2000
Number of Tech Req := 3
Tech Area Req 1 := Human Balance Tech
Tech Level Req 1 := 1
Tech Area Req 2 := Medical Technology
Tech Level Req 2 := 2
Tech Area Req 3 := Construction
Tech Level Req 3 := 1
Number of Abilities := 3
Ability 1 Descr := Cures level 1 plagues in this system.
Ability 2 Descr := Populations in this system will reproduce 6% faster
Ability 3 Descr := Medical Research 75

Name := Bio Med Facility II
Description := Advanced medical center which cures the ill and helps prevent disease.
Facility Group := Population Support
Facility Family := 881
Roman Numeral := 2
Restrictions := None
Pic Num := 4
Cost Minerals := 2000
Cost Organics := 5000
Cost Radioactives := 3000
Number of Tech Req := 2
Tech Area Req 1 := Human Balance Tech
Tech Level Req 1 := 1
Tech Area Req 2 := Medical Technology
Tech Level Req 2 := 3
Tech Area Req 3 := Construction
Tech Level Req 3 := 1
Number of Abilities := 3
Ability 1 Descr := Cures level 2 plagues in this system.
Ability 2 Descr := Populations in this system will reproduce 7% faster
Ability 3 Descr := Medical Research 100

Name := Bio Med Facility III
Description := Advanced medical center which cures the ill and helps prevent disease.
Facility Group := Population Support
Facility Family := 881
Roman Numeral := 3
Restrictions := None
Pic Num := 4
Cost Minerals := 2000
Cost Organics := 6000
Cost Radioactives := 4000
Number of Tech Req := 2
Tech Area Req 1 := Human Balance Tech
Tech Level Req 1 := 1
Tech Area Req 2 := Medical Technology
Tech Level Req 2 := 4
Tech Area Req 3 := Construction
Tech Level Req 3 := 1
Number of Abilities := 3
Ability 1 Descr := Cures level 3 plagues in this system.
Ability 2 Descr := Populations in this system will reproduce 8% faster
Ability 3 Descr := Medical Research 100

[ July 08, 2004, 02:41: Message edited by: JLS ]

JLS

July 8th, 2004, 03:31 AM

Originally posted by gregebowman:
Hmm, I'm always slow to build up on my medical technicology. Right now, I have Bio Med II (?). I guess I'll have to research more medical now, if I want my population to grow. Thanks. With a Bio Med Facility built in System I would expect your Reproduction rate to be near or well above 20%.

If you are playing a Star Liner type Game -there use is the key to your GROWTH and Possibly your survival.

- - - -
If Star Liners are not for you, Play AIC free starting option OS* enabled - and your Growth will be extreamly steady and without falter. And you do not need many if any Starliners at all -->(POP TRANSPORT FREE if you wish)<-- Trade any surplus resources and now build Combat Ships instead of Starliners http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Gives the benifits of - Immigration
= = = = =
Reference

Name := SO*
Description := With *HP* above, this option will result in a more robust game that requires LESS Micro Management and logistics. Your game will be less dependent on Star Liners with this option.

Name := Immigration
Group := Applied Science
Description := Improved Planet population increases. By means of Immigration and Naturalization.
Maximum Level := 1
Level Cost := 100
Start Level := 1

[ July 08, 2004, 02:56: Message edited by: JLS ]

Yimboli

July 10th, 2004, 02:07 PM

JLS-

i'm not sure if this has been answered before or not, but i'm wondering why you didn't include a universal colony ship kinda like the universal colony component included in the DevNull mod (the Last Version of it i played anyway). I liked how in devnull mod, once I researched all three colony techs, I had one component that could colonize any planet (rock, gas, or ice), and didn't have to micromanage so much. i.e. in stead of counting the individual numbers of rock, ice, and gas planets in a system I wanted to colonize fully, all I needed was the number of planets. this is a small thing I know, and I can (relatively) mod it into AIC myself. I'm just wondering why you opted not to include it?

~Tim

JLS

July 10th, 2004, 04:44 PM

I agree this is indeed a nice touch in DevNull; however, with many MODS or Stock se4- this same flexibility or more: could be accomplished by the se4 settings file to := false http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif (Please review reference below)

I am unsure of any effects Dual or Tri Colonizing abilities within one ship will have on the AI Players in stock se4 (post v1.91) - as to the AI's logical use of this option and to consider the gain in flexibility for Human Player http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Oleg, suggested this same option just prior to the AIC release of v4.191 and after a short test it was decided then: that Dual Colonizers was an option that may take from the Human Players intellectual process of the game and may not be to the AIC AI Players best interest - in the overall http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

= = = = =
Reference - Defaulted se4 Data/Settings File:

No Retrofit Adding Of Colony Module := True (False would allow more Flexibility for Human Players in a Stock type se4 environment) http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ July 10, 2004, 17:29: Message edited by: JLS ]

Fyron

July 10th, 2004, 06:46 PM

Doesn't a facility starting with roman numeral 0 imply that it only has 1 level? Seems to me like anything with multiple levels should start with a roman numeral...

I agree this is indeed a nice touch in DevNull; however, with many MODS or Stock se4- this same flexibility or more: could be accomplished by the se4 settings file to := false [Wink] (Please review reference below) All that that setting does is allow you to add a colony module in a retrofit to a ship that does not have a colony module already. It does not prevent you from changing an ice colony ship to a gas one. It is not akin to a universal colony module in any way.

Universal colony modules benefit the AI, as it no longer builds too many of one type of colony ship, once it has them available... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif It can send the colony ship with a universal module to whatever planet it wants. No more worries about building too many rock colony ships, when there are plenty of ice and gas planets to colonize.

[ July 10, 2004, 17:50: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

JLS

July 10th, 2004, 06:53 PM

I can see were that would be an understanding to you Fyron.

What come firsts Zero or one - or is Zero the end and in then the new begining.
= = =
Edit:

The AIC AI has always made scores of Colonies - even, Hundreds of Colonies for years; even prior to se4 v1.78. I see no reason to change this and add an extra burden on the Players to keep up with ALL the AI Players http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

"this same flexibility or more: could be accomplished by the se4 settings file to := false"
Please read my post.

I never said you could NOT retro fit a Colony Ship to another type - as you may have implied, Fyron.

However, my post says what it says - "you will acheive a greater flexibility in a Stock se4 Enviroment" (.) http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ July 10, 2004, 19:00: Message edited by: JLS ]

JLS

July 10th, 2004, 07:18 PM

Grand Lord Vito
Sergeant
Member # 3762

posted May 02, 2004 05:05 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JLS the beta release for AIC 4.50 is great I played it all week end.
Some of the AI is a little agresive is this what you wanted? The plate armor for the out side hull is perfect and dosnt use very much internal space MORE WEAPONS . I like the Internal Structural Supports (leaky Armor) And with no armor load restrictions
The AI builds even more ships with even larger task forces (45+ ships in 3 Fleets with others ranging from 2 to 40 in the late game) Tere planet fighers may be a little to hard to crack should you tone this down?
They build more Colonies faster now it is getting very tough to keep at medium AI bonus
Are you going to implement the AI Spereworld SM ships still?
Keep up the good work.

Did you get my Email

In a (private beta) long ago - GLV posted on his observations http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

- - -

We can have the AI in AIC do just about anything that we can imagine - to include 6666.66 Colony Ships of any or each Planet Type http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif , even to say the AIC AI to have all 20000 of the Super and Heavy Baseships to knock out or capture any opponent - and thereby denying anybody to have any Colonies http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

However, you may already know this with AI Campaign and to know - this would be to much against any Human Opponent http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ July 10, 2004, 18:47: Message edited by: JLS ]

Fyron

July 10th, 2004, 07:58 PM

Originally posted by JLS:
I can see were that would be an understanding to you Fyron.

What come firsts Zero or one - or is Zero the end and in then the new begining.Ah, but a 0 entry does not display a numeral of 0, it displays nothing. This implies that there are no more levels, like with stock game Spaceports and Resupply Depots.

The AIC AI has always made scores of Colonies - even, Hundreds of Colonies for years; even prior to se4 v1.78. I see no reason to change this and add an extra burden on the Players to keep up with ALL the AI Players [Wink]
It would not cause them to build more ships, it would just mean that they no longer waste resources on a couple of useless colony ships...

[ July 10, 2004, 18:59: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

JLS

July 10th, 2004, 08:03 PM

[ July 10, 2004, 18:59: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Agreed http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ July 10, 2004, 19:05: Message edited by: JLS ]

Fyron

July 10th, 2004, 08:08 PM

I never said you could NOT retro fit a Colony Ship to another type - as you may have implied, Fyron. Such an implication does not follow from my post.

Please read my post.

I never said you could NOT retro fit a Colony Ship to another type - as you may have implied, Fyron.

However, my post says what it says - "you will acheive a greater flexibility in a Stock se4 Enviroment" (.) [Wink]
No, you said the _same_ flexibility could be achieved, which is not true. Having to waste time and resources retrofitting ships does not in any way provide the same flexibility of a universal colony module. Further, that setting does not have anything to do with the request at hand. The entire purpose of the universal colony module is to reduce tedious micromanagement. No longer do you have to keep track of what you are building based on what is available. Just build as many colony ships as you have planets to colonize, and away you go. This is impossible to accomplish with retrofitting colony ships to other types, or even with retrofitting non-colony ships into colony ships. That just adds another layer of micromanagement to the whole affair.

JLS

July 10th, 2004, 08:22 PM

Thank you Fyron for this understanding - Perhaps you should institute the Universal Colonizer in your Adamant MOD - perhaps even as an Ability (derived only from the Mounts alone) and not from the Components of themself http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

However, as of now - and it was posted such �we have decided against this in AIC�, this is OK with you Fyron or is it not. Please do not answer it was not a question and it is just of academics http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

= = = =

Tim - We will play test this some more; as a Human Player Vehicle Hull and with your pre-reqs - thank you for the Suggestion http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

[ July 10, 2004, 19:26: Message edited by: JLS ]

JLS

July 10th, 2004, 08:45 PM

If any body Posts that you can have the same less micro management with ARMOR THAT IS ALSO SHIELDS (leaky or not) as to address all opponents offense options or to say the reverse or to say why have the Micro management of Ships at all and just start and keep the �Uber Ship� �~� etc�. Then we are being Flamed http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif

It is a matter of what all Players want and not one or the loudest - that makes it all the package for many.

Enough - please just have fun http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Fyron

July 10th, 2004, 08:59 PM

Originally posted by JLS:
If any body Posts that you can have the same less micro management with ARMOR THAT IS ALSO SHIELDS (leaky or not) as to address all opponents offense options or to say the reverse or to say why have the Micro management of Ships at all and just start and keep the �Uber Ship� �~� etc�. Then we are being Flamed http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif

It is a matter of what all Players want and not one or the loudest - that makes it all the package for many.

Enough - please just have fun http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Where did that come from? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

JLS

July 10th, 2004, 09:06 PM

I received two Emails from AIC Players http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

The more player think of Yimboli�s Suggestion the more all may liken to it - Thank you again TIM http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ July 10, 2004, 22:09: Message edited by: JLS ]

Grand Lord Vito

July 11th, 2004, 01:36 AM

Originally posted by JLS:
Tim - We will play test this some more; as a Human Player Vehicle Hull and with your pre-reqs - thank you for the Suggestion http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif [/QB]I also like it. I was aganst the AI having any more Colonies but this would be great for JUST the human players in the late part of the game http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

JLS maybe add the FAST Colonizer as another "pre req"

Grand Lord Vito

July 11th, 2004, 01:44 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Where did that come from? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif I dont now why. Lets see http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif it is my turn to log on and say somthing about you http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif (and I wanted to http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif but) and now somebody logs on about me............. tere goes three pages of nonsence and I never would have seen Yimbolis post

You know how it goes Fyron http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Try letting a couple of guys have a chat with out destroying the conversation http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

QBrigid

July 11th, 2004, 06:16 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
No, you said the _same_ flexibility could be achieved, which is not true. Having to waste time and resources retrofitting ships does not in any way provide the same flexibility of a universal colony module. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif
JLS said with se4 and some MODS. Flexibility you may want to look up the word. Not cost analysis Fyron, I will teach this right now. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

You mean to say waiting a bunch of turns to build a 7250 resource Colonizer at a SY is more flexible and less costly then just retrofitting at any forward base at a REDUCED COST OF 5500 and to be flexible to race an opponent or build an advanced base. Hmmm, cheaper and faster http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Cost wise you are also not thinking that you have to Spend 1700 maintainence to move that Colonizer to a forward Planet.

Hmm... Fyron, why do you post over and hurt so many people and to be so wrong so often http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

[ July 11, 2004, 05:32: Message edited by: QBrigid ]