AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent

[QBrigid]

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.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
Thank you sir. I would very much like this and I will have them all done for you by the end of this week.
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[QBrigid]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Check your private Messages. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Fyron I already read your untimly opinion. I do not care for your opinion I want to see others talk and not you http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif

What do you do haunt people with PM's that do not agree with you. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif

Please do not PM me again.

[ July 11, 2004, 06:07: Message edited by: QBrigid ]

[Will]

QBrigid,

When someone on this board takes a discussion to PM, it usually means that it is getting close to flames in the current topic. Straw-man arguments are not appreciated on these Boards. Fyron has the rank "Shrapnel Fanatic" for a reason, and he does read Posts, and Posts well thought out responses.

Nobody uses the strategy of retrofitting colony ships at the destination for a very good reason: it takes extra time/cost to build the retrofit base in the destination system, and extra time to do the actual retrofitting. Time is of the essence in colonizing, and it is more "flexible" to have colonizers that can land ASAP.

[Grand Lord Vito]

Will

This is nice that you aid in Fyrons defense, but I think QB has the right to decide who sends her MAIL.
Geo and the other Moderators are here to be sure of no flames or extreme tempers http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

The only thing that was posted that it could be as or more flexible. As an alternative, option with UC or just to try as is.
I think JLS's point is. Does, everybody that Plays AIC agree that we can make the game so easy that it takes the decisions away from us and it becomes to clear to do "this, and this would be any "this" not just the UC"...
How fun would this be on a Strategy game if all your Stratigies are thought up for you to follow only one designed path

As you can see with QB’s post that in many circumstances that it can be more flexible (at TIMES) to upgrade a Small Transport or a FAST DESTROYER to any colony type and at a Border BSY and not a SY that must have enough rate to build (Spend the Minerals to build it and then move it to the front)
Again check QB cost and time analysis post. You could just retrofit for (LESS) cost and time and in a Multiplayer game (TIMING IS EVERYTHING) http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

JLS mentioned this as an option and to show us how to do this with those reference things he does, I would never have known this above option (even just to try once)if JLS did not do this for all of US

and Fyron wanted all the focus elsewhere and it was not about the AI in DevNull or Stock se4 not making enough Colonies or some Faciliries being at zero (Thereby showing no number over image of the graphic) I thing the sentence Upgrade to Space Dock or when we use the Planets upgrade menu will also tell us what can be upgraded (thats why se4 has the upgrade menu http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif
How was this to the Conversation at hand?

It was as Yimboli said it would give us Human Players an option and JLS said that is nice touch also could try...

(This Fyron has been doing very much of and for a long time. That is changing the focus of the thread or discussion at the time (without reading the Posts), with his Version of a half related “Quote of the rules then this may be my issue as well because the whole tone has changed from an informative topic to him???”)
Rules Lawyers we have them in all Games http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

But all of us know this already about being polite and not interrupting and just to enhance the discussion and not attempt to always be the Hot Shot (right or wrong) http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

I think Fyron has issues with JLS and that they must resolve this and not on open Forum where it effects others.


EDIT: tried to fix my English the best i could.

[ July 11, 2004, 15:41: Message edited by: Grand Lord Vito ]

[Grand Lord Vito]

Originally posted by JLS:
Originally posted by dogscoff:

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
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Nice job QBrigid and thanks http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

[Grand Lord Vito]

Originally posted by JLS:
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
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I always play AIC with the Play AIC free starting option OS* enabled. No se4 POP Transport at all if you want, but I always have 3 Starliners to jump start a new Colony to help the locals build the DEBARKATION Depot and once that is built it is like having AUTO Starliner deliverys for the rest of the game http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ July 11, 2004, 16:00: Message edited by: Grand Lord Vito ]

[Suicide Junkie]

Sheesh, you three have really short fuses.
Take the bickering elsewhere, such as PMs.

JLS knows what the options are, and its his mod. He knows what he is doing, and dosen't need this in his thread.

[Mephisto]

*Moderator Mode /on*
Dito!
*Moderator Mode /off*

[oleg]

I do not think human players need universal colony modules. Humans build colony ships to colonize planets and should know better what type is needed. AI is another story. It builds colony ships because construction_vehicle file tells it so. Very often it results in infamous "dead end colony ships" bug. Universal colony modules resolves this problem very nicely and greatly benefit AI. However, if JLS belives AI does not need this, so be it. Personaly I would love if AI had dual and universal colony modules.

[JLS]

Thank you Mephisto and SJ for your guidance.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Fyron. Again thank you for the heads up on the Facilities Numerals, I will rethink it - never stop keeping your suggestions coming you are Valued. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

QB. I in fact know you completely adore Fyron - who are you kidding attempting to be so tough http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

GLV summed up my views on options and about taking options away from Players when in fact they may want more or at least the choice to have more for some if not the many. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

TIM- Most Players want your suggestion with: (14 Players say UC and 2 against - Unierversal Colonizer Hull (is in) for the Human Player only. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Oleg.
We have always seen the AIC AI Players Colonize very well compared to that of Human Players and we all know the capabilities.
Certainly we can have them colonize more - Moreover, this will only deny the Human Players of Valuable Resource Systems and Planets in the Mid and End Game as a result - this must be cautioned. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Clearly it is not more Resources, Intel or Research the AIC AI needs - Since se4 v1.91 I am forever throttling this AI Balance back - as you may have noticed.

However Oleg, if you feel that the AI needs more Ships or Bases then sure as we know this is very easy to do and the AI can afford infinite numbers. We can have a round robin about this - although as we have already noticed the AI does well and in fact - some may want less Ships and Units for the AI Players. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

= = = = =
Other Rhetoric’s may only discourage new se4 Players from wanting to post http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif - if so and if regards to AIC: please Email or PM myself or Oleg http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ July 12, 2004, 17:38: Message edited by: JLS ]

[oleg]

No, I don't want a super-killer AI,which is easily doable in AIC. But tt just makes my aesthetic sence cringe when I see the AI to research, say Ice colony but been unable to colonize nice, jucy planets because of the 3-4 Rock colonizers chocking up the construction file http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

It just looks stupid, typical of Ai. Multi purpose colonizer solves this idiotism and enforces the impression you are fighting worthy opponent.

In the end, it will not boost up AI very much, in most situations AIC AI avoids "dead end colonizers" but not always and it would still add a nice touch. Just MHO.

[ July 12, 2004, 19:41: Message edited by: oleg ]

[Yimboli]

Originally posted by oleg:
I do not think human players need universal colony modules. Humans build colony ships to colonize planets and should know better what type is needed. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I think you misunderstood my motivation for making the suggestion. When I come across a system in a game, I usually colonize the largest breathable planet, set up a debarkation depot, and go on my merry way. It is not until I have a solid economy that I worry about colonizing the non-breathable planets. Thus, in my game right now, I have whole systems with only a couple planets colonized.

My task now is to colonize them. So to queue up all the colony ships I'm going to need in a system, I first must click on every planet in the system, write down the number of Rock, Gas, and Ice planets, and queue them up accordingly for construction amongst whatever spaceyards I have available for constructing the colony ships.

My suggestion is solely aimed at convenience. A universal colony hull would eliminate the mundane task of recording the number rock, gas, and ice planets in a system, and ensuring you are making the right amount in your space yards. With a universal colony hull, you need only count the *number* of planets you want to colonize in a system.

I understood you to assert that humans would be more powerful with a universal hull. Perhaps I misunderstood you? I don't see how we would be a more challenging adversary vs. the AI with universal hulls.

Sure, we can count the number of rock, gas, and ice planets easily enough. But why?

Your comments are appreciated.

~Tim

PS: why does everyone capitalize my name? not that it bothers me... i'm just fascinated by the sudden trend.

[oleg]

You misudersood me. Univ. colony module is exeptionally usefull for AI, not for humans.

As to "debarcation depot" strategies, I can not commend. I never play with this option and consider it as a blashemy of Proportions idea. I would rather go back to unmoded SE than cheat AI like that !

[JLS]

Originally posted by Yimboli:
I think you misunderstood my motivation for making the suggestion. When I come across a system in a game, I usually colonize the largest breathable planet, set up a debarkation depot, and go on my merry way. It is not until I have a solid economy that I worry about colonizing the non-breathable planets. Thus, in my game right now, I have whole systems with only a couple planets colonized.
My suggestion is solely aimed at convenience. A universal colony hull would eliminate the mundane task of recording the number rock, gas, and ice planets in a system, and ensuring you are making the right amount in your space yards. With a universal colony hull, you need only count the *number* of planets you want to colonize in a system.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">

Absolutely, the UC is agreed by most - to be a fine Idea and addition for the AIC Human Players. It really takes no options away from Human Players and it is a fine {{{trophy/reward}}} if you will, to those that have accomplished all three colonizer type techs http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

- - -

I understood you to assert that humans would be more powerful with a universal hull. Perhaps I misunderstood you? I don't see how we would be a more challenging adversary vs. the AI with universal hulls.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I am not sure I would go as far as to say “an assertion“: however, with se4 v1.91 Multi Colonizers may be fine for other MODs AI and it has never been my desire to remark in any negative understanding, on another designed MOD on Public Forum.

My Last post defined the AIC AI and absence of need for additional SYSTEMS and the Planets located with-in.

Currently the AIC AI will compete for Systems to that of Human Players - Moreover, this is to desired limits (that is defined by a pre-programmed time). The AIC AI needs no more Planets then it may accomplish in this time and if this AIC AI Colonization doctrine is altered:
It may change the expected competitive results of AI vs. Human Players on some default Quad Maps and may justify the need for MAPS that exceed se4 true default values and thereby loosing the structured intent of the se4 default map levels and design.

Exceeding Colonies from the AI will put undue pressures on the Human Players in smaller or moderate Quad maps: perhaps forcing an aggressive stance from friendly AI Races and that may be earlier then the Human Players (and to that of some AI Players) may want. As it is - the Humans Players on average in AIC, do dictate the options for total WAR with the less violent AIC se4 races.

The AIC can have many more Planets (Any Number to that more then the Human Players and for those that wish not to consider above - may wish to Consider the Political effects and the comfort levels that the AI (review se4 AI settings) may now have and the responsiveness of any previous setting and that this in other mods may now need to be readdressed as to maintain the integrity of the Political files.

And above all, with the hopes that this may contribute to the close of this item for the AIC AI:


Originally posted by JLS:
We have always seen the AIC AI Players Colonize very well compared to that of Human Players and we all know the capabilities.
Certainly we can have them colonize more - Moreover, this will only deny the Human Players of Valuable Resource Systems and Planets in the Mid and End Game as a result - this must be cautioned.

Clearly it is not more Resources, Intel or Research the AIC AI needs - Since se4 v1.91 I am forever throttling this AI Balance back - as you may have noticed.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">This (may) now also apply in many ways to all existing se4 v1.91 MODS with applicable and specific - desired AI players


= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Reference Ulkra se4 default AI DATA FILE - Anger and Settings :

=================================================
AI ANGER DATA FILE - Default

This file governs how the anger of an empire changes based on different events
caused by another player. Amounts can be positive or negative changes to the current
anger level with the responsible player.

Per Attack Location
Amount per planet of another player that we want.
"~"

=================================================
*BEGIN*
=================================================
Max Ship Size Tonnage From Start 1 Amount := 510
Max Ship Size Tonnage From Start 1 Num Turns := 20
Max Ship Size Tonnage From Start 2 Amount := 610
Max Ship Size Tonnage From Start 2 Num Turns := 40
Max Ship Size Tonnage From Start 3 Amount := 0
Max Ship Size Tonnage From Start 3 Num Turns := 0
Turns to Wait until next attack := 6
Maximum Maintenance Percent of Revenue := 80
Maximum Research Point Generation := 100000
Maximum Intelligence Point Generation := 100000
Maximum Systems to Defend at a Time := 3
Get Angry Over Allied Colonizable Planets := True
Get Angry Over Enemy Colonizable Planets := False
Percentage of Allied Planets to consider as Attack Locations for Anger := 10
Percentage of Enemy Planets to consider as Attack Locations for Anger := 0
Personality Group := 1
Ships don't move through minefields := false
Ships don't move through restricted systems := false
Clear orders on encounter enemy := false
Clear orders on encounter all := false
Percentage of total satellites to keep as planetary cargo := 40
Percentage of total drones to keep as planetary cargo := 40
Number Of Anti-Ship Drones Per Target := 3
Number Of Anti-Planet Drones Per Target := 3
Maximum Anti-Ship Drone Target System Distance := 5
Maximum Anti-Planet Drone Target System Distance := 5

=================================================
*END*
=================================================

[ July 14, 2004, 14:21: Message edited by: JLS ]

[Mephisto]

BTW: The colonizer bug should be history since the Last patch.

[JLS]

A few Emails indacted this; however, I wanted to test this myself before replying yo Oleg.

Thanks Mephisto.

Oleg the AI in AIC and if not all MODS - WILL build continues (desired set amount) Colonizers as well and as per TDM's and Master B's instructions to me/us on how to set up the AI V-Construction File some years ago.

[ July 14, 2004, 14:54: Message edited by: JLS ]

[JLS]

Originally posted by oleg:
As to "debarcation depot" strategies, I can not commend. I never play with this option and consider it as a blashemy of Proportions idea. I would rather go back to unmoded SE than cheat AI like that ! <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">What you recommend for the UC just for the AI Players is in fact an Enhancement for the AI and one that the AIC players do not agree with, as a whole.


The Star Liners are there for all Players in AIC as with other Transport options.

AIC Immigrations (auto POP transport option) are for Players that do not want the Micro Management of POP Transports and this has been well received. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Regards to AIC AI Minesweeping "enhancements" - this has been debated and also has been addressed.
I and many prefer the TDM introduced AI method of Minesweeping for stock se4 and is the absolute BEST in the overall.

However, AIC is not stock se4 and as such - new ideas will be introduced with MODS as a conduit http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

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

[ July 14, 2004, 14:58: Message edited by: JLS ]

[gregebowman]

Originally posted by JLS:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">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. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">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 </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Thanks for the info. As of right now, I just stopped using Starliners, and am now using large transports. Not only can I get them to hold more people (right now it's 3 million), I've got them moving at movement 8. It's still slow in getting people to my newly colonized systems as I expand, but it's better than the starliners. Next time I play this mod, I'll try your method.

[ July 14, 2004, 21:36: Message edited by: gregebowman ]

[QBrigid]

Originally posted by gregebowman:
As of right now, I just stopped using Starliners, and am now using large transports. Not only can I get them to hold more people (right now it's 3 million), I've got them moving at movement 8. It's still slow in getting people to my newly colonized systems as I expand, but it's better than the starliners.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I like the Star Liners and don't play with OS*.
And I do the same thing http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif a FEW DOZEN slow and cheap Starliners and a bunch of Fast Tranports http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[oleg]

I like non-conected games. Population shipping is no problem - open warp points close to HW and each other http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

But when bad comes come... you will regret it http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

[QBrigid]

THATS THE TRUTH OLEG http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

You do not want to (BLINDLY) open a warp to a Psyco or Violent AI, unless you are prepared http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ July 15, 2004, 12:59: Message edited by: QBrigid ]

[gregebowman]

Originally posted by QBrigid:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by gregebowman:
As of right now, I just stopped using Starliners, and am now using large transports. Not only can I get them to hold more people (right now it's 3 million), I've got them moving at movement 8. It's still slow in getting people to my newly colonized systems as I expand, but it's better than the starliners.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I like the Star Liners and don't play with OS*.
And I do the same thing http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif a FEW DOZEN slow and cheap Starliners and a bunch of Fast Tranports http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">.

The only thing that's keeping me from having huge fleets of tranpsorts is my minerals. I'm not mining enough, apparently, and get into shortages. (darn those mainenance costs!) But I hope to correct that with System Mineral Scanners and colonizing planets with 100%+ minerals.

[ July 15, 2004, 21:26: Message edited by: gregebowman ]

[oleg]

Originally posted by QBrigid:
THATS THE TRUTH OLEG http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

You do not want to (BLINDLY) open a warp to a Psyco or Violent AI, unless you are prepared http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yeah, I once had a game very similar to the first chapters of "In death ground" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
Damn, how I love that book !

[QBrigid]

Originally posted by gregebowman:
The only thing that's keeping me from having huge fleets of tranpsorts is my minerals. I'm not mining enough, apparently, and get into shortages. (darn those mainenance costs!) But I hope to correct that with System Mineral Scanners and colonizing planets with 100%+ minerals. [/QB]<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Mineral Scaners will give you an extra 15 to 45%.
Don't forget Planet Engineering to raise the Value of the Planets.
Ring World Placement should give you the sure win over the AI if you can manage one or two.

AIC is designed for you to have or even need a few hundred war ships for most of the game and you should pass the AI, not by much depending on the AI Bonus you started with.
You need all sorts ships in a combat fleet from Destroyers to a few Battleships and Dreads http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[QBrigid]

Originally posted by JLS:
Absolutely, the UC is agreed by most - to be a fine Idea and addition for the AIC Human Players. It really takes no options away from Human Players and it is a fine {{{trophy/reward}}} if you will, to those that have accomplished all three colonizer type techs http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">JLS it is easy to build the UC and have it waiting for a planet to be created. No more worrying about the AI beating you to colonize the new planet http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ July 18, 2004, 18:41: Message edited by: QBrigid ]

[oleg]

I think there is a problem with AI recon. satelites - recently I encountered Cue-Cappa stalite stack with 4 "normal" missile satelites and 65 !!! recon. satelites (psyc. receptors, PDC and nothing else). I looked up AI files and nothing there suggested so many recon. satelites so it is a puzzle to me. May be simply drop all recon. satel for AI ? It has build-in scanners after all !

( I can e-mail a save game with this situation)

[JLS]

Thanks Oleg, I meant to resolve the AI spy sats totals. The onboard AI SAT scanners are weak and designed mostly for storms as to initiate other defences - AI mines, etc.

After this next AIC release - all AIC AI files will be refreshed to utilize all changes from the new AIC v4.191 DATA files.
BTW: I looked at the Terran Race, as you suggested. What I may do: is drop Engine Overloading research and concentrate them towards High-Energy Discharge earlier and to include many PD options on all Platforms for all races http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ July 19, 2004, 19:44: Message edited by: JLS ]

[JLS]

Originally posted by QBrigid:
Mineral Scaners will give you an extra 15 to 45%.
Don't forget Planet Engineering to raise the Value of the Planets.
Ring World Placement should give you the sure win over the AI if you can manage one or two.

AIC is designed for you to have or even need a few hundred war ships for most of the game and you should pass the AI, not by much depending on the AI Bonus you started with.
You need all sorts ships in a combat fleet from Destroyers to a few Battleships and Dreads http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">
Mineral Extraction will be raised as per the previous post, Eco Farms and Rad Colliders will be quicker to establish - all in AIC next Version, this to further address the Human Player needs from the se4 v1.91 upgrade. Followed by the AIC AI refresh and then I am done. On with Star Fury and se5!!!

Planetary Engineering and SM Super World Placements are not needed in AI NONE Bonus games.
However, you will need some Planetary Engineering in a AI LOW Bonus Game to sustain a thorough offensive capability.
In a AI MED Bonus Game you will need all of the se4 tools to win.
It is unlikely you can win a AI High Bonus game - this is meant for certain LAN Games.

Above all and this is the key: stabilize your borders first - then GO from there http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

It is very difficult for Battleships, Dreadnoughts or Base Ship to hit a Destroyer and it can be almost impossible for them to hit a Frigate. A Mixed fleet is your best option - just follow the AI players lead with Ship Displacements and try not to get far ahead of them. Infrastructure investments are just as important as weapons of war - perhaps, more so in most situations http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ July 19, 2004, 20:06: Message edited by: JLS ]

[QBrigid]

I started an AIC SOLITAIRE with the game settiing of {Players can only colonize home planet type} using the FQM-Centurian AIC cluster map and the AI does not even break down (WOW) http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

[Grand Lord Vito]

The AIC AI can handle almost every game starting setup http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

We have been playing “planet type only starts” in few of our LAN games for a long time now and the AI does FANTASTIC. Dont worry it wont hurt the AIC AI if you stric mine all the planets and astroids http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Here are a few AIC (own type start) tips if you are playing with the AI Campaign supplied FQM quad maps.
Start with a large FQM-Cent map and any amount of AI players. I like GAS and mine all the Rock types. Less COLONIES to manage and more minning that way http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

1: Look for a sector with a lot of moons and place a satilite outpost to get tons of resources.

2: Put Robo Miner Components on the Transports and mine the planets that aren’t your type.

3: TRADE with NEUTRALS and the other AI Players or even your Trade Center for any resources that you need early, but that should not be a problem with all the ASTRO MINING you can do http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

4: After you get to medium transports research Industry 2 and strart building some AIC RESOURCE STATIONS with a SYS. Remember the AIC Resource Station Hull has some automatic minning capabilities built in. I think they are 900 minerals, 600 Rads and 300 orgs and then you still can add a Robo Minning Component and mine even more http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

[ July 24, 2004, 15:07: Message edited by: Grand Lord Vito ]

[Grand Lord Vito]

Originally posted by QBrigid:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">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 <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">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 </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif I BUILT MY FIRST RING WORLD !!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

[JLS]

Your AIC Quad maps do not have to be Large GLV - any size and any amount of AI Players will be totally fine. However, new Players should always start their first AI Campaign game - with AI Computer Bonus of NONE.

With the way the moons are in the FQM-Cent Quads, some times it may be best to land a Colony with many moons and then build a Habitat Dome to gather organics from all the moons or a Rad Station or a Lunar Outpost will also gather all the lunar minerals combined http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Build an AIC Resource Station and you will collect ALL three resource types in total at that sector http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

- - -
There is a lot to be said about playing a gas race against any se4 AI - "LESS COLONIES" and most se4 AI Players do count and can become envious http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

= = =
Congratulations GLV on the Ring World placement - what took you so long http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ July 24, 2004, 17:13: Message edited by: JLS ]

[JLS]

QB.
Do not forget to put the Engineering Section (less ship maintenance), and a Self-Destruct on your Orbital Resource Station, this way you can forget about it when the deeds are done http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[Yimboli]

It seems that I rarely see anything about sphereworlds... are they overkill? Do most people settle for ringworlds? I usually hold out until sphereworlds before I think about placing worlds around stars

[JLS]

I go for Ring Worlds and build on that. Mostly out of immediate need to get over the top when playing a higher AI bonus game - to counter attack a nagging, very tough and powerful nearby or leading AI opponent and end its reign outright.

Agreed, I also prefer to build them in a Bi or Tri Star System. Or a nearby cleared anomalistic Systems Nebula, Novian Star, etc.

QB offers good advice: Most AIC Science and Engineering AI races that are allied with you - WILL clear a Nebula, Black Hole etc. and/or build a Star for you. All they need are all the charts to plot a course to that System and the fuel to complete the project http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ July 25, 2004, 01:27: Message edited by: JLS ]

[madkillercat]

Quick question, were the Scout, Escort, and Frigate hulls developed after the other hulls were finalized?

I graphed the Offense Bonus, and Defense Bonus vs. displacement (KT) and noticed those three break each curves mostly logarithmic nature. From what it looks like and from the descriptions in the mod, Off+ and Def+ are inversely proportional to displacement and proportional to movement.

However, the inconsistencies include the Scout and Frigates having equal Def+. I assume this is a result of the Frigate's top movement of 18. However, the Frigate's Def+ still seems too high. Also, the Escort's high Off+ doesn't fit inverse proportionality of Off+ to displacement. With Quantum Engines, both the Scout and Escort class hulls have max movements of 15, yet the larger Escort has a better Off+.

[QBrigid]

Originally posted by Yimboli:
It seems that I rarely see anything about sphereworlds... are they overkill? Do most people settle for ringworlds? I usually hold out until sphereworlds before I think about placing worlds around stars <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I always make Ring Worlds. With this FQM game I am playing now, I will make first Shpere.

Yimboli how what does a Sphereworld give you?

[Paul1980au]

In the standard 1.91 v game sphereworlds are almost never needed against AI opponents.

That said you can mod hte tech levels to bring them into play mid game where they can be used more widley but this does throw the game balance out a bit.

[JLS]

Agreed Paul1980au. A few Ring Worlds certainly is enough to fill our needs - when needed.

Although, the Sphere World is a neat wonder when accomplished http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[JLS]

Originally posted by madkillercat:
Quick question, were the Scout, Escort, and Frigate hulls developed after the other hulls were finalized?

I graphed the Offense Bonus, and Defense Bonus vs. displacement (KT) and noticed those three break each curves mostly logarithmic nature. From what it looks like and from the descriptions in the mod, Off+ and Def+ are inversely proportional to displacement and proportional to movement.

However, the inconsistencies include the Scout and Frigates having equal Def+. I assume this is a result of the Frigate's top movement of 18. However, the Frigate's Def+ still seems too high. Also, the Escort's high Off+ doesn't fit inverse proportionality of Off+ to displacement. With Quantum Engines, both the Scout and Escort class hulls have max movements of 15, yet the larger Escort has a better Off+. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Excellent question http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

As with Automobile engines and Airplane fuselages: all past and present and still to be designed - one would expect a performance ratio curb to be true and holy; however this was and is rarely the case http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
AIC *may* have taken some liberties and this also lends too some game play options and in game decision making as to the usage of some AIC Hulls:

- - -
Our first Hull is the 100kt Scout Class: with fair maneuverability numbers that lean towards a strong defensive capability. This Hull makes for a good utility vessel, and this little baby is the best suited for Efficient Engine performence. This class can serve as: recon, med ship etc. and the in-system light and inexpensive security vessel - that will keep our good planetary Citizens happy.

150kt standard Escort: with its fine balance that will yield good maneuverability - even with an engine payload at two thirds. This hull has great offensive maneuverability to slip into a tight spot and let loose those sometimes finicky and hard to target “early” Beam Weapons - with a closeup personal and greater accuracy then most other Hulls http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

200kt Fast Frigate: Is she fast, and very versatile - this Hull can outclass any other Hull and makes for one of the finest chase vessels for both its speed and the dodge-them defensive capabilities http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

- - -
Madkillercat, perhaps the 550kt Cruiser can use a little something else - this design is often neglected and she usually gets the pass with the Battle Cruiser next on deck - Perhaps we could better her defensive maneuverability’s. What do ya think?

[ July 26, 2004, 11:13: Message edited by: JLS ]

[Yimboli]

Originally posted by QBrigid:
I always make Ring Worlds. With this FQM game I am playing now, I will make first Shpere.

Yimboli how what does a Sphereworld give you? <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I guess nothing that a ring world doesn't... I just like having the biggest, baddest, and best things out there http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[JLS]

Originally posted by Yimboli:
I just like having the biggest, baddest, and best things out there http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You got that right http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[madkillercat]

Originally posted by JLS:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by madkillercat:
[qb] were the Scout, Escort, and Frigate hulls developed after the other hulls were finalized?
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Excellent question http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

AIC *may* have taken some liberties and this also lends too some game play options and in game decision making as to the usage of some AIC Hulls:

- - -
Madkillercat, perhaps the 550kt Cruiser can use a little something else - this design is often neglected and she usually gets the pass with the Battle Cruiser next on deck - Perhaps we could better her defensive maneuverability’s. What do ya think? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Overall I find the automobile analogy reasoning contrived, and the liberties made mostly in order to counter the...stupid AI in SE4.

I can agree with your usage of those hull classes, yet I don't view ship design that way for the most part. For example:

Scouts could be used that way, however I find putting sick bays in ALL warships to be sufficient. The low cost and small size of the sick bay being sufficient to justify its use. So all warships double as low level medical ships.

I prefer designing with a completely flexible vehicle system in mind. That means I don't consider Carrier, Transport, Base, Satellite, Mine, Fighter, or Drone hulls to be anything but ways to force the AI to do certains things.

Customized designs is my joy in SE, and I rarely use transport or carrier hulls. (e.g. in AIC I use a BC w/ less engines, etc vs a MT.) The fine balance of AIC has allowed me to do this w/o as much cost as it would in most mods. However, this "hull type" contrivance for the AI is still there. I dislike designing with "pre-determined" efficiencies and specificity in hulls as was apparently done with those (3) hulls. (e.g. FF Def+=40 is due to assumed use of 5/5 engines. Using 4/5 should not give Def+=40, yet the bonus cannot vary. Thus the FF is much stronger than it should be otherwise. Despite high costs, I have a large FF complement in my fleets vs. DD&LC due to their high tactical capability).

Re: Cruiser. Yes, it has no strengths. If you graph Def+ vs KT you will notice an inconsistant drop in Defensive ability between LC and CA. So the CA has a higher than expected "Defensive minus" than expected or the LC has a lower than expected Def-. In terms of capability as a warship, the LC, or BC provide more cost effective delta Off/Def per KT than the CA (and DN) if you ignore engine costs. If not, the CA does require 1 more (expensive) engine and is 1 move slower w/ Quantum engines.

The CA is a relatively ineffective warship hull--more costly, less war capable than LC or BC. Whether you vary Def-, Off-, or Movement, the other hulls (besides LC & BC) should be taken into account to prevent unbalancing.

[madkillercat]

Just in case, that Last post is not supposed to be a bash at you, AIC, or Proportions. It's more a why-is-the-AI-so-stupid-and-the-game-engine-so-limited-grr.

[JLS]

I did not at all feel you were bashing AI Campaign. Actually, many of the AIC Players do like the AIC Hull structures and the options that they provide thru out the game and that many of the AIC Hulls - will not fall obsolete http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Se4 is very far from a limited game engine, and the se4 AI is not as stupid as you may believe.
It is my belief that the se4 programmers made some wise decisions at the time Space Empires 4 was published, with respects to market a product that the majority wanted and at that time it may have meant at some very small AI expense; however the overall se4 Gold game package is vast in depth and we expect even greater things to come with se5 http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

= = =

Mathematical formulas are tangible to contrive an accounting of something of everything;
however, mathematical formulas are intangible, no mater how one wishes the contrivance - it will never fill the void and can not ever answer the final questions.

[ July 26, 2004, 22:50: Message edited by: JLS ]

[madkillercat]

Hmm, not obselete...ok...

"Limited" is more accurate than stupid, or perhaps "too little for what it's supposed to do". From what I remember, the SE2 and 3 AIs were adequate for their respective domains while the SE4/G AI is insufficient for its. SE2 and 3 were relatively simple, and did not have enough features to require a capable AI. SE4/G however does have enough depth and breath to require a strong AI.

The SE4 AI is "stupid" because it provides minimal challenge w/o significant bonuses. To hopefully clarify why, here are some games I consider having "non-stupid," consistently formidable AIs: Galactic Civilizations, and Warlords.

Yes, SE5 looks very interesting, and I will probably preorder it too.

Oh...then are you saying you have a better way of organizing reality? Or are you saying SE4, and particularly its AI, is meaningless since it is based on mathmatical presumptions Aaron/MM made?

Math is not real not the truth, only a philosophical basis for reality. It is however used by scientists, and also for constructing working system models of environments. For example, SE4/G which models "space empires." The only thing I can think of as capable of filling voids is love, understanding, faith, and good buttered biscuits; I just don't see how you you would actually make a game with them . Feels good, but not much filling.

[QBrigid]

Originally posted by madkillercat:

Oh...then are you saying you have a better way of organizing reality? Or are you saying SE4, and particularly its AI, is meaningless since it is based on mathmatical presumptions Aaron/MM made?
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">What are you talking about now http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif
madkillercat, you said the stock se4 AI was stupid and se4 was limited not JLS http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif
Originally posted by JLS:
Se4 is very far from a limited game engine, and the se4 AI is not as stupid as you may believe.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The way I understand it, JLS wanted to "introduce a way that would not render small hull sizes to become obsolete when the next Hull is researched".

Originally posted by JLS:
Actually, many of the AIC Players do like the AIC Hull structures and the options that they provide thru out the game and that many of the AIC Hulls - will not fall obsolete http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">As you said yourself it is a fine balance that AIC acheived and also that Frigates are extraordanary and that is your entire escort force
(that is until your escort force goes up against fighters or a less then equal amount but of equal tech in enemy Destroyers that are well shielded, armored and cant miss Frigates) http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Maybe you missed the part where JLS explained this and the benifits that the small Hull Classes have to offer thru out our AIC games.

I think you stated your point madkillercat and I am also not in agreement with you {I like the AIC Hull manuver Ratings}.
Other then the 550 CA could use a little something to help it become a little apealing.
Maybe lower the maintainence and add a little more to its manuverability. I know this will throw that exact (curve graph Def+ vs KT) out of wack http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif but I could just build a few cruisers now for planet bombardment ships or even a few troop assault CA ships on the way to the Battle Cruiser if you deviate from the "graph" like you did with the small AIC hulls JLS and find a nitch for the neglected se4 Cruiser.

[ July 27, 2004, 06:55: Message edited by: QBrigid ]

[QBrigid]

Originally posted by JLS:
As with Automobile engines and Airplane fuselages: all past and present and still to be designed - one would expect a performance ratio curb to be true and holy; however this was and is rarely the case http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
AIC *may* have taken some liberties and this also lends too some game play options and in game decision making as to the usage of some AIC Hulls:
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">What is reality, I never seen a Hull actually travel at the speed of light http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Large Electrical Pumps and Motors are the same way, they loose the staring torque and require a need for a capacitor just to get it turning. Increasing Amperages and Electrical usage as the machine increases in size and the efficiency chart rating consistency is out the window.
My brother played with enignes and I recall him saying a 283 had more bang for the buck then a 307 block Engine or was it a 302? Well you guys would know better.

Bottom line is we like the ingame flexibility of the AIC Small Hulls and I wouldn’t change much JLS http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ July 27, 2004, 07:24: Message edited by: QBrigid ]

[QBrigid]

Originally posted by Grand Lord Vito:
I BUILT MY FIRST RING WORLD !!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Felt good didnt it http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[JLS]

MDC,
I also plan to pre order Space Empires 5 and it should be extremely interesting and FUN http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Madkillercat it does not look like the budge is going to happen for a strict relationship of numbers for the Scout, Escort and Frigate.
I truly wish this was not an obstacle with you, it is only a base for a platform we can build from with se4 Components and in the end design it could be what is desired.
- - -

I received an E-Mail from a Player: Perhaps we could discuss raising the Destroyer 5% to hit and redo the CL through BC to achieve a clear edge for the se4 Cruiser so it may be conducive to build and contribute to our fleets.

What are your thoughts to achieve a more conducive AIC Cruiser?

[ July 27, 2004, 15:58: Message edited by: JLS ]

[madkillercat]

Originally posted by QBrigid:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by madkillercat:

Oh...then are you saying you have a better way of organizing reality? Or are you saying SE4, and particularly its AI, is meaningless since it is based on mathmatical presumptions Aaron/MM made?
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">What are you talking about now http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">This:

Originally posted by JLS:
Mathematical formulas are tangible to contrive an accounting of something of everything;
however, mathematical formulas are intangible, no mater how one wishes the contrivance - it will never fill the void and can not ever answer the final questions. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I should have said: What are you talking about now http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif
and quoted him before I questioned him, eh?
My interpretation of JLS's above words are:
"Math, what's math. who cares. I like things the way they are, and so do my friends and probably their doggie too."


Originally posted by QBrigid:
madkillercat, you said the stock se4 AI was stupid and se4 was limited not JLS http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by JLS:
Se4 is very far from a limited game engine, and the se4 AI is not as stupid as you may believe.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The way I understand it, JLS wanted to "introduce a way that would not render small hull sizes to become obsolete when the next Hull is researched".

Originally posted by JLS:
Actually, many of the AIC Players do like the AIC Hull structures and the options that they provide thru out the game and that many of the AIC Hulls - will not fall obsolete http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">As you said yourself it is a fine balance that AIC acheived [snip]

Maybe you missed the part where JLS explained this and the benifits that the small Hull Classes have to offer thru out our AIC games.

I think you stated your point madkillercat and I am also not in agreement with you {I like the AIC Hull manuver Ratings}.
[/QB]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I "saw" JLS's explanation. As I mentioned, I consider hull specific changes to be "pre-determined" efficiencies. In short, my already stated opinion is such hull "balancing" is a work-around for weak AI. or pre-determined efficiencies is work-around for de facto weak AI. I could already see my impending loss in the polls regarding this opinion. I did not/do not "expect" anyone to support my view on the AI. My goal with that Last post was to clarify since JLS SEEMED to misinterpret what I said:

pre-determined efficiencies <= bad AI

as

no-obsolete-small-hulls => pre-determined efficiencies <= bad AI
no-obsolete-small-hulls <=> bad AI
no-obsolete-small-hulls <=> bad AIC
no-obsolete-small-hulls <=> bad AIC, it sucks, its sooo bad

Originally posted by QBrigid:

Bottom line is we like the ingame flexibility of the AIC Small Hulls and I wouldn’t change much JLS http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I did not see that coming. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

The AI is strong. The AI is god. SE4 is greatness. There is nothing wrong with MY game.
Hell, SE5 isn't even needed. Just slap Star Fury graphics onto SE4, and us fanatics, no fans will have 3D greatness too.


Anyway, don't change the hulls if you don't want. I just thought it strange to have such inconsistancy when almost everything looked like consistant within the AIC universe rules. I also would have thought it strange if the Millenium Falcon appeared in the middle of a Federation battle with the Dominion. But then, flexibility and understanding do make the world go 'round--or something.

[JLS]

Please, lets us not all let this get out of hand with missed or partial quotes and rhetoric’s.

MDC - I do desire your input: Do you have any positive advise to share with regards to the neglected se4 Cruiser to become more conducive?


Madkillercat it does not look like the budge is going to happen for a strict relationship of numbers for the Scout, Escort and Frigate.
I truly wish this was not an obstacle with you, it is only a base for a platform we can build from with se4 Components and in the end design it could be what is desired.

I received an E-Mail from a newer Player: Perhaps we could discuss raising the Destroyer 5% to hit and redo the CL through BC to achieve a clear edge for the se4 Cruiser so it may be conducive to build and contribute to our fleets.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">

[ July 27, 2004, 17:15: Message edited by: JLS ]

[JLS]

Originally posted by madkillercat:

Anyway, don't change the hulls if you don't want. I just thought it strange to have such inconsistancy when almost everything looked like consistant within the AIC universe rules.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Thank you madkillercat http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

I have failed to explain fully the intent to add a little individual diversity to some AIC Hulls and to keep obsolesce to a minimum - please except my apologies.

[ July 27, 2004, 17:17: Message edited by: JLS ]

[madkillercat]

Originally posted by JLS:
MDC,
I received an E-Mail from a Player: Perhaps we could discuss raising the Destroyer 5% to hit and redo the CL through BC to achieve a clear edge for the se4 Cruiser so it may be conducive to build and contribute to our fleets.

What are your thoughts to achieve a more conducive AIC Cruiser? <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">If simulator results don't push it too far ahead of smaller OR larger hulls. Also, by raising Destroyer Off+ by 5% you start a trend where every other hull size has better Off+ than the previous hull size--like a zig-zag line.

Making the CA a better contributor is not so simple as your design objectives include hull-non-obselesence. Obtainity parity between the LC - BC range while maintaining the upper and lower ranges will be difficult. Some factors to keep in mind:

Hull Off+ and hull Def+ follow a consistant trend from the DD through heavy baseship range. To simplify balance testing, hold one constant, and only twek the other.
e.g. holding Def+ constant. With each hull size, the increase is KT becomes more significant. So too high Off+ gives a significant margin of superiority to heavier hulls, and can make smaller one obsolete. Coupled with smaller mounts/less Off-, a large hull with many small mount but accurate weapons becomes unbalancing.

Movement is also dangerous due to KT increases between classes. Your larger hulls are generally becoming even larger and speeding them up noticably will improve those large hulls too much. Likewise, minimal changes do little good since max movement is 9+/-1.

Hull KT shifting of CL - BC is also difficult since there is little shifting possible due to hulls above and below that range. Any changes to hull KT will require changes to Off/Def and movement. Complexity make KT changes prohibitive without extensive testing.

One approach is to come up with a rationale for ships in that size range. There already is one for the scout through frigate hulls. The escort being hard to hit, and the frigate being fast. Come up with some role for the hull that is consistant within the world you have created.
e.g. fast BC's sacrifice some hull intregity/ECM+ to be able to bring in heavy weapons.
e.g. CA's "armored" by good ECM/Def+ protect transport throughfares from hit-and-run enemy attacks.
I don't know how you are playing your campaigns so you'll come up with better rationales than I can.


Originally posted by JLS:
MDC,
Madkillercat it does not look like the budge is going to happen for a strict relationship of numbers for the Scout, Escort and Frigate.
I truly wish this was not an obstacle with you, it is only a base for a platform we can build from with se4 Components and in the end design it could be what is desired.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Obstacle? I don't care whether or not it is changed--SE4 is just a game and AIC just a mod. You have a rationale for for the change, sounds fine to me. We just differ in WHY we think such changes were made.

Timeline:

I mentioned a bulge.
You said hull flexibility, etc.
I said no, it's weak AI.
You said hull flexibility, etc.
You also said...I'm not sure what you said about the void and math not be real.
I said, weak AI.
You said (above) let's change the subject.

[madkillercat]

Originally posted by JLS:
Please, lets us not all let this get out of hand with missed or partial quotes and rhetoric’s.

MDC - I do desire your input: Do you have any positive advise to share with regards to the neglected se4 Cruiser to become more conducive?
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif How evasive for someone who recently related "filling a void" to a game/mod.

Re: CA hull, see below. You have your work cut out for you. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[madkillercat]

Originally posted by JLS:
I have failed to explain fully the intent to add a little individual diversity to some AIC Hulls and to keep obsolesce to a minimum - please except my apologies. [/QB]<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I did realize your intent. I just view what you did more as a way to cover for the AI than to keep obsolesce to a minimum. You may not have intended or thought of "patching" the AI, but it is one of the things those tweaks seem to achieve.

[JLS]

You have a rationale for for the change, sounds fine to me. We just differ in WHY we think such changes were made.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Fair enough http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[JLS]

Do not forget to put the Engineering Section (less ship maintenance), and a Self-Destruct on your Orbital Resource Station, this way you can forget about it when the deeds are done http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">How is the AI Campaign with the Fyrons FQM style game coming along, FQM is a lot of fun.


Did you place that Sphere World?

[ July 27, 2004, 19:09: Message edited by: JLS ]

[Grand Lord Vito]

I have always posted FQM is a great addon to AIC and is perfect for the players that like astro mining
I will stick with ring worlds.
I followed Geos post. To build two BSY with a yard ship, then have the SYS help one BSY with the ring world components and the other BSY start building the ring world generator and timed for everything to be done at the same time.

Some of the LAN games are finished in our group. I am sure ther are a few players that would want to start a new
COLONIZE OWN PLANET ONLY AIC-FQM game.

[QBrigid]

No more complaints about FQM Asteroids from me, playing a {Colonize own type only) AIC and Fyrons FQM style game is like PLAYING A WHOLE NEW GAME ! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

I am at odds with the Sallega AI Player, so I doupt I will have a Sphere world soon.

[JLS]

Rock AI Players can build up fast in a Colonize Home Planet Type only games http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

You can remove some unwanted AI race's to your: AIC\Pictures\Races removed from play -
(XiChung for example) http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

- - -
How are the GAS AI Players ship counts?

[ August 01, 2004, 00:31: Message edited by: JLS ]

[AIC]

With FINITE and most style se4 game starts: The AI Players in AIC can handle almost anything. You can play against the AI with a Computer Bonus of NONE and the AI will give you a reasonale challenge and not fall apart. At a starting computer player bonus of medium you will have to be at your best game.

JLS, can you log into the new Shrapnel Forum?
Nod your head side-to-side if still no http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

[Fyron]

You might want to send a PM to Richard... he might not see your message here.

[JLS]

I can only log in from home.
I am unsure why I can not log in from work?
Thanks Fyron http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif I Emailed Richard and I will send a follow up PM http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

What I see there are some great changes http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

[Fyron]

Does your work place have a repressive firewall running? The difference in how logins are stored with this forum software and the old may be the culprit...

[deccan]

Hmm, the website for this mod no longer works. I guess it's not being supported any more. I miss it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif

[Fyron]

AI Campaign can still be downloaded from SE.net:

*link* (http://www.spaceempires.net/home/modules.php?name=Downloads&amp;d_op=viewdownloaddetail s&amp;lid=302&amp;ttitle=AI_Campaign#dldetails)

[Yimboli]

Oh, no! I disappear from the forum for several months, and I come back to find that AIC has dropped into the void behind my dresser.

JLS, say it ain't so! I miss AIC...

Is it to ever return?

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

[JLS]

Hi, I also disappeared working on a couple of other mods with a few other games.

CIV III (TAM) and Hearts of Iron (CORE)

I should have something for AI Campaign in before the X-Mas break http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Captain Kwok]

They always come back. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

[Alneyan]

Welcome back JLS! (I have been playing Civ III myself of late... Not the best way I can think to spend time before exams, but... *Shrugs* Oh, am I digressing again?)

[JLS]

Thanks Alneyan. This excursion was far too long. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

[PTF]

I agree. /threads/images/Graemlins/icon04.gif

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

[Makinus]

What is the latest version of AIC? There is any other mod with the same kind of logistics but without the proportions-like population model? If i change the mod so the population transport is handled in the same way than in the stock game the AI would broke?

[Alneyan]

The latest version should be 4.1, I believe; I haven't heard of any major upgrade since 4.1 at any rate.

You cannot really remove the Proportions population model, though I guess you could make population meaningless and make it so the AI no longer builds starliners. However, there is an option that allows you to build a facility increasing population by one million every turn in a given system. This makes starliners less important, and you can actually do without starliners altogether.

[Makinus]

i should have explained better: i still want to use starliners, but i want that starliner be able to transport more pop per ship than what is currently in the mod (like, 10 times more), so i will still use starliners but they wil not be too excessive in numbers... i believe i know what i can change in the mod to allow it, but my doubt is if this would broke the AI as i don´t know how the Ai handles population and starliners...

[Alneyan]

I gather the AI would buid too many starliners in this case, perhaps hurting itself in the process... but then I only know how the AI is scripted, not how to script it.

Perhaps you could make this a "human-player" only change? After all, if your Starliners carry ten times more population as standard Starliners, but cost ten times as much, it should be nearly the same.

[PTF]

4.191 is the most recent version. but the download page is down.

the population increase module has been a racial trait setting AFAIR.

[Makinus]

maybe if i go the AI files and change all callings for starliners to a tenth of the number...

[JLS]

Reply JLS:
Makinus the latest version of AIC may be found at Space Empires.NET. However, between all else I have on my plate I have been working an upgrade.

The AI with AIC - handles the Population for its Colonies far better then the Stock se4 AI.

If you wish to play without Star Liner logistic, Please play with starting Trait option OS* http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Thank you for your post.
John

REFERENCE RACIAL TRAITS :

Name := *HP*
Description := Human players are *REQURIED* to take this for Human Tech Area. This choice alone; delivers a moderate game. Human Player may mix options below.

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 := MP*
Description := Multiplayer - LAN, PBW and PBEM games must have above Option *HP*. -&gt;NOTE: Please ask HOST to confirm your MP Handicapping levels and all start settings.

Name := O1
Description := With *HP* above, an advantage for AIC Players that would like an all-around more productive Home World and Colonies.

Name := O2
Description := With *HP* above, presents an Excellent Advantage: For a higher Proportions of Resources (not recommended for Finite Games). -&gt;NOTE: Please be sure to take at least the above *HP* Trait --- (ABOVE) ---
"~"

==================
Poster: Makinus

"What is the latest version of AIC? There is any other mod with the same kind of logistics but without the proportions-like population model? If i change the mod so the population transport is handled in the same way than in the stock game the AI would broke?"

[JLS]

The "Proportion population model" is only a basic DATA setting for mass equals 1000; Hence, there will be a proprtional build up of population for all players to include the AI and from this starting point we can MOD other Modifiers - via Trait, Facility etc.

As Alneyan expressed that there is a setting for AIC that will allow basic Auto pop Transports for you if you wish to avoid excessive logistician transport.
AIC optional OS* start setting will allow for a more Robust game - but perhaps a little less strategic type game.

If you alter the MASS=1000 you will corrupt the AIC Mod, this is why we programmed the OS* starting option to lessen se4 redundant Transport management http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif


Reference
GAME SETTINGS DATA FILE:


================================================== =========
*BEGIN*
================================================== =========
Population Mass := 1000

================================================== =========

"""""""""""""""
Poster: Alneyan

The latest version should be 4.1, I believe; I haven't heard of any major upgrade since 4.1 at any rate.

You cannot really remove the Proportions population model, though I guess you could make population meaningless and make it so the AI no longer builds starliners. However, there is an option that allows you to build a facility increasing population by one million every turn in a given system. This makes starliners less important, and you can actually do without starliners altogether.

[JLS]

Changing any AI Population Transport Call - Will do very little to help or hurt the AIC AI; Moreover, a greater number of AI transports will allow more possibilities for Human Player Ship Capture http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif - Less however, will lesson this Human Player tactic and do almost NOTHING to help or hurt the AIC AI Player. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smile.gif
= = =
If you wish to move {even more} population - Please, build more or Larger AIC Star liners and start the game with the (OS* Game option enabled) provided for you, located in that individual players trait menu.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smile.gif
John

"""""""""""""""
Poster: Makinus

maybe if i go the AI files and change all callings for starliners to a tenth of the number...


Poster: Makinus

i should have explained better: i still want to use starliners, but i want that starliner be able to transport more pop per ship than what is currently in the mod (like, 10 times more), so i will still use starliners but they wil not be too excessive in numbers... i believe i know what i can change in the mod to allow it, but my doubt is if this would broke the AI as i don´t know how the Ai handles population and starliners...